NationStates

Repeal “Liberate The United Kingdom of Britain”

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #89: Liberate The United Kingdom of Britain shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The Security Council,

Recognising the ceased status of the founder nation within The United Kingdom of Britain and the brief capture and passwording of the region by The Greater German Reich (GRR),

Applauding the liberation for increasing the prominence of this issue which has led to international pressure on GGR,

Noting that the GGR, who previously occupied the region, were defeated by a coalition organised by The Land of Kings and Emperors prior to the passage of Resolution #89, "Liberate the United Kingdom of Britain," removing the password and returning peace to the region,

Realising that the liberation is no longer required as the region's protectors have restored peace to the region, and that the option of password protecting the region should be returned to the natives to allow for a community to reform,

Believing that all regions have the right to self determination when their issues have been resolved,

Hereby Repeals Security Council Resolution #89, "Liberate The United Kingdom of Britain."

Co-authored by Onderkelkia

Okay then, as some will probably know Liberate "The United Kingdom of Britain" was passed heavily in favour but prior to the conclusion of the vote the following happened...

Tue May 29, 2012 4:45 am

1 minute ago: The Empire of Newation removed regional password protection.
5 minutes ago: The Empire of Newation suppressed some posts on the regional message board.
5 minutes ago: The Empire of Newation unsuppressed some posts on the regional message board.
7 minutes ago: The Empire of Newation ordered the closure of embassies between The United Kingdom of Britain and The United Kingdom of Breutchesland.
8 minutes ago: The Empire of Newation ordered the closure of embassies between The United Kingdom of Britain and The Greater German Reich.
9 minutes ago: The Empire of Newation aborted construction of embassies with The United San Diego States.
9 minutes ago: The Empire of Newation aborted construction of embassies with Europia.
9 minutes ago: The Empire of Newation aborted construction of embassies with The United Republican Nations.
13 minutes ago: The Empire of Newation elected WA Delegate (ending The Empire of Grand Britain and Northern Ireland's reign after 61 days).

The region was emancipated from The Greater German Reich and the password struck down thus meaning that the Liberation was no longer required. With so little time left, and such overwhelming favour, both myself and Onderkelkia have drafted the repeal text above. I am hoping to get a quick turnaround on this so that the region will not be targeted again while it's defences are open thus stopping it from being able to rebuild itself.

So, thoughts my fellow members of the World Assembly's Security Council?

I can't say that I'm against this. The purpose of the resolution has been done, and I'd hate to see another Islam for raiders to fool around with.

Fischistan wrote:I can't say that I'm against this. The purpose of the resolution has been done, and I'd hate to see another Islam for raiders to fool around with.

Agreed, and I am glad to hear that the author of the Liberation understands why this repeal is now necessary.

The repeal works for me

Would repealing a liberation even work?

Liberations are silly to begin with, but even more silly when coupled with a silly repeal ten minutes later. The whole defender/raider gig should take their petty squabbles elsewhere than this council, or we should implement some time constraints on how long a proposal has to be up before it can be repealed. Perhaps that is a discussion for Technical. If you want the region Leberated, let it be. If not, don't write the law in the first place.

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote:Liberations are silly to begin with, but even more silly when coupled with a silly repeal ten minutes later. The whole defender/raider gig should take their petty squabbles elsewhere than this council, or we should implement some time constraints on how long a proposal has to be up before it can be repealed. Perhaps that is a discussion for Technical. If you want the region Leberated, let it be. If not, don't write the law in the first place.

The Liberation did its cause. preventing the region from being refounded. Now, its cause is no longer, because LKE has secured the region. Liberations were made specifically for defenders (and, occasionally, raiders) to use to combat raiders when they password a region.

Drop Your Pants wrote:The repeal works for me

Thank you DYP

Alyekra wrote:Would repealing a liberation even work?

It would indeed. Please see the following....

SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 82
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 66

There are several more but those are the last two

Fischistan wrote:

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote:Liberations are silly to begin with, but even more silly when coupled with a silly repeal ten minutes later. The whole defender/raider gig should take their petty squabbles elsewhere than this council, or we should implement some time constraints on how long a proposal has to be up before it can be repealed. Perhaps that is a discussion for Technical. If you want the region Leberated, let it be. If not, don't write the law in the first place.

The Liberation did its cause. preventing the region from being refounded. Now, its cause is no longer, because LKE has secured the region. Liberations were made specifically for defenders (and, occasionally, raiders) to use to combat raiders when they password a region.

Couldn't have said it better myself

I realize this is exactly what Liberations were made for, but the whole mechanic is foolish in my mind. Call me old-fashioned. I will likely vote for a repeal on the grounds that I disagree with Liberations in the first place.

Your old fashioned Whens this going up?

Drop Your Pants wrote:Your old fashioned Whens this going up?

I was going to save it until tomorrow but since there seems to be no complaints then..... T minus 5 mins

Please Support Repeal "Liberate The United Kingdom of Britain.

The Liberation has served its purpose now and a TG campaign will now follow. Enjoy

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote:The whole defender/raider gig should take their petty squabbles elsewhere than this council

This Council was created largely because there was no place else for their petty squabbles. You're under no obligation to participate in Liberation discussions or votes, so honestly, if you don't care, don't post that you don't care.

Frisbeeteria wrote:You're under no obligation to participate in Liberation discussions or votes, so honestly, if you don't care, don't post that you don't care.

Posting that the whole ordeal is a little bit silly was simply a prelude to saying that I will vote for the resolution, should it reach quorum, as I stated in my second post.

*bows out*

Delegate Vinage wrote:Believing that all regions have the right to self determination when their issues have been resolved [...]
Co-authored by Onderkelkia

Whiskum wrote:There is no generic principle that every region's sovereignty is sacrosanct.

Anyway, I will encourage my Delegate to support the resolution.

Frattastan wrote:

Delegate Vinage wrote:Believing that all regions have the right to self determination when their issues have been resolved [...]
Co-authored by Onderkelkia

Whiskum wrote:There is no generic principle that every region's sovereignty is sacrosanct.

On the contrary, if a region is subject to an ongoing military conflict, then that region has undeniably got 'issues', to use the term preferred in the resolution draft, and they are unresolved. There is no contradiction whatsoever.

The military conflict in TUKB is over and it is now in a peaceful, undisputed state. Regardless, this resolution is worthy of support whether or not its issues have been resolved. However, the statement that regions where all issues have been resolved (one way or the other) deserve self-determination on the one hand, and the rejection of the idea of a generic principle requiring regional sovereignty, are perfectly compatible.

Moreover, self-determination as a right in this instance refers to the ability of the region's founder and delegate to be able to exercise the full array of powers they are normally entitled to provided there is no such ongoing conflict. It has no bearing on the sovereignty of regional governments beyond their ability to utilise game mechanics without interference from the Security Council.

"As my government believes this will likely reach quorum soon, our regional diplomats have opened discussions in The North Pacific on this proposal."

Whiskum wrote:If they are subject to an ongoing military conflict, then that region has got 'issues', to use the term preferred in the resolution draft, and they are unresolved. There is no contradiction whatsoever.

This resolution is worthy of support regardless of whether or not its issues have been resolved, but the statements that rights without issues which have been resolved (one way or the other) deserve self-determination on the one hand, and the rejection of the idea of a generic principle requiring regional sovereignty, are perfectly compatible.

Indeed you would be correct ... if the second quotation wasn't part of a larger statement where it is clearly said that imperialist regions don't set - or otherwise recognise the existence of - a universal criteria to judge the sovereignty of a region, but decide on a case-to-case basis, according to their interests.

Frattastan wrote:

Whiskum wrote:If they are subject to an ongoing military conflict, then that region has got 'issues', to use the term preferred in the resolution draft, and they are unresolved. There is no contradiction whatsoever.

This resolution is worthy of support regardless of whether or not its issues have been resolved, but the statements that rights without issues which have been resolved (one way or the other) deserve self-determination on the one hand, and the rejection of the idea of a generic principle requiring regional sovereignty, are perfectly compatible.

Indeed you would be correct ... if the second quotation wasn't part of a larger statement where it is clearly said that imperialist regions don't set - or otherwise recognise the existence of - a universal criteria to judge the sovereignty of a region, but decide on a case-to-case basis, according to their interests.

The obvious lack of incompatibility in the original quotations you selected being evident for all to see, you have now changed your argument to make broad generalisations about out-of-context statements on different concepts and then offer highly tenuous suggestions that these somehow create a conflict of principles. Put simply, self-determination, in terms of founder/delegate ability to use regional controls free from interference from external bodies such as the Security Council, and the sovereignty of regions from invasion are ultimately distinct ideas which should not be conflated, as I have explained in more detail within the addition to my post since your reply.

In the context of the resolution, all the clause you have mischeviously picked up on and misinterpreted means is that regions, which have been liberated by the Security Council, have a right to determine whether or not to password their region, once the reason for the barrier on passwords being imposed on that region has expired. Conceptually, it does not include any wider statement about regional sovereignty: it is instead entirely concerned with the fact it is wrong for the Security Council to keep resolutions which infringe on regional decision-making on record after the purpose for these resolutions has expired.

my government would support this as a liberation did its assigned job but to leave it there would endanger the region. Which was not the intent and we believe the community needs to be given a chance to repair but the invaders hurt

Whiskum wrote:The obvious lack of incompatibility in the original quotations you selected being evident for all to see, you have now changed your argument to make broad generalisations about out-of-context statements on different concepts and make highly tenuous suggestions that these somehow creates a conflict of principles. Put simply, self-determination, in terms of founder/delegate ability to use regional controls free from interference from external bodies such as the Security Council, and the sovereignty of regions are distinct concepts which should not be conflated, as I have explained in more detail within the addition to my post since your reply.

I was merely pointing out that in fact you don't hold up to the principles of the resolution you co-authored - and that this particular action was dictated by pragmatism. I wasn't making a broad generalisation, but contextualising the quote - which you decided to consider out of its original context.

Please, from now on, use a decent definition of "self-determination" (the ability of regions to govern themselves, free from foreign interference of any kind, including that of other regions), instead of a made-up one.

Frattastan wrote:

Whiskum wrote:The obvious lack of incompatibility in the original quotations you selected being evident for all to see, you have now changed your argument to make broad generalisations about out-of-context statements on different concepts and make highly tenuous suggestions that these somehow creates a conflict of principles. Put simply, self-determination, in terms of founder/delegate ability to use regional controls free from interference from external bodies such as the Security Council, and the sovereignty of regions are distinct concepts which should not be conflated, as I have explained in more detail within the addition to my post since your reply.

I was merely pointing out that in fact you don't hold up to the principles of the resolution you co-authored - and that this particular action was dictated by pragmatism.

Naturally, being the FRA Chief of Defence, you have every motivation to attempt to suggest I do not adhere to my principles, hence your selective comparison of extracts from the resolution and statements relating to different concepts on previous occasions.

However, as an author of the resolution, fortunately I am aware exactly what self-determination in this resolution means. It narrowly concerns regional governance from the perspective of the operation of game mechanics not being impeded once the purpose for doing so has ended. This is exactly why the resolution refers to issues being resolved after referencing self-determination. It is this idea which relates self-determination to the Security Counci's function in this matter rather than vague universal notions.

There is no inherent inconsitency between being pragmatic and principled simultaneously. In this instance, these approaches happily coincide.

Frattastan wrote:I wasn't making a broad generalisation, but contextualising the quote - which you decided to consider out of its original context.

The idea that the quotation you have cited and the resolution contradict has not been supported by any specific contextual information, merely by your vague generalisations about what my statements supposedly mean (as opposed to showing what they actually say).

Frattastan wrote:Please, from now on, use a decent definition of "self-determination" (the ability of regions to govern themselves, free from foreign interference of any kind, including that of other regions), instead of a made-up one.

The technical meaning of 'self-determination' within a given context should not be confused with the use of the term in ordinary conversation or even general academic purposes. In this instance, the resolution qualified 'self determination' by stating:

Believing that all regions have the right to self determination when their issues have been resolved

It makes no sense whatsoever for your proposed definition of self-determination in this instance (namely the ability of regions to govern themselves in general) to be subjected by the proposal to the caveat of 'when their issues have been resolved': after all, within a region's domestic politics and foreign relations, a region will always have issues requiring resolution and the entire point of self-determination in the sense you use the term is to enable them to do that independently.

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for the proposed definition I have tendered, namely the ability of a region to be be able to determine its own in-game settings, subject to the issues being resolved (i.e. the reason why the Security Council Resolution being instituted in the first place ending), to be transplanted into the resolution. This is because resolving the reason (the issue) why the Security Council passed a liberation resolution means ordinary regional governance can resume.

In the words of Lewis Carroll:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Dashiopolis stands behind the repeal of this liberation.

Whiskum wrote:The idea that the quotation you have cited and the resolution contradict has not been supported by any specific contextual information, merely by your vague generalisations about what my statements supposedly mean (as opposed to showing what they actually say).

I didn't feel necessary to tire other forum participants with another re-statement of your well-known opinion on the right of regions to self-determination.

Whiskum wrote:

Frattastan wrote:Please, from now on, use a decent definition of "self-determination" (the ability of regions to govern themselves, free from foreign interference of any kind, including that of other regions), instead of a made-up one.

The technical meaning of 'self-determination' within a given context should not be confused with the use of the term in ordinary conversation or even general academic purposes.

I see. If then you are using a definition that isn't universally-agreed then its meaning should be specified in the resolution itself ("Defining self-determination, in the context of this resolution, as"). Since I don't see how the "Believing" clause qualifies 'self-determination'.

Frattastan wrote:

Whiskum wrote:The idea that the quotation you have cited and the resolution contradict has not been supported by any specific contextual information, merely by your vague generalisations about what my statements supposedly mean (as opposed to showing what they actually say).

I didn't feel necessary to tire other forum participants with another re-statement of your well-known opinion on the right of regions to self-determination.

First, you did, however, feel it necessary to raise the issue in the first instance and therefore imginge upon popular perceptions of my integrity, without then substantiating the only thing which (from your argued perspective) keeps your allegation of incompatibility together.

Second, the comments I made referred to regional sovereignty, rather than self-determination. Rather than being synonymous, in their ordinary (as well as in the technical use of self-determination discussed below) these concepts can even conflict.

Frattastan wrote:

Whiskum wrote:The technical meaning of 'self-determination' within a given context should not be confused with the use of the term in ordinary conversation or even general academic purposes.

I see. If then you are using a definition that isn't universally-agreed then its meaning should be specified in the resolution itself ("Defining self-determination, in the context of this resolution, as"). Since I don't see how the "Believing" clause qualifies 'self-determination'.

Simply because a meaning is not used in conversational terms does not mean it requires a specific definition if the context makes its meaning readily obvious. The meaning here is apparent if self-determination is then considered in relation to the remainder of the sentence (about the resolution of issues) and in relation to the Security Council's functions: namely that once the issue why the liberation resolution was passed has been resolved, TUKB should be able to determine the question of a password directly. That is what is of practical consequence. There is no need to over-complicate that.