[Passed] Repeal "Nuclear Power Safety Act"

[Bergnovinaia]

Any final thoughts? I want to submit this some time this week.

[Discoveria]

Just minor formatting issues.
1. The bulleted list I suggested became unbulleted in the current draft. Just a reminder to put that back in if you like how it looks.
2. Watch out for the double speech marks - some of them look like "" and some look like “” - consistency would be good.

Good luck this time, heh.

[Bergnovinaia]

Just minor formatting issues.
1. The bulleted list I suggested became unbulleted in the current draft. Just a reminder to put that back in if you like how it looks.
2. Watch out for the double speech marks - some of them look like "" and some look like “” - consistency would be good.

Good luck this time, heh.

Ok! Fixed, I think!

[Discoveria]

Last ones:

• corporation’s or nation’s needs -> corporation's or nation's needs
• “follow adequate building designs" -> "follow adequate building designs"
• deemed as "adequate” -> deemed as "adequate"

[Bergnovinaia]

Submitted for a test run! Delegates, please approve here!

[Mousebumples]

Approved!

[Ossitania]

Herp. I literally just noticed that I've replaced Individuality-ness as the co-author. Woops.

[Individuality-ness]

Herp. I literally just noticed that I've replaced Individuality-ness as the co-author. Woops.

You made a significant contribution to this draft, it seems right to give you co-authorship this time. *nods*

[Bergnovinaia]

I am quite pleased that this proposal has reached 50 delegate approvals. Hopefully we garner the remaining 18 approvals needed in the next 42 hours to secure a floor vote.

As earlier, all delegate approval's are much obliged!

[Bergnovinaia]

The repeal is now in Queue (by a narrow margin... no approvals to spare. )

The proposal will reach a vote following the vote on "Repeal 'On Expiration Dates.'"

[Bergnovinaia]

Since this proposal will be at a vote in just over one day, I figure I would give this a bump to start the discussion.

[Bergnovinaia]

Alrighty... this proposal has reached a floor vote. Things have already gotten off to a messy start with 10ki's delegacy vote against the repeal, but I hope that popular support will bounce back from the vote set back.

If anyone has any questions regarding this repeal, please pose them or contact me or my co-author.

[Kleinekatzen]

Have cast FOR the repeal.

I do hope you will write a replacement proposal though...having these things repeal then not rewritten or a blocker put in place is annoying.

If you wish for it to past, then a bit of campaining of the no voters will be required. Focus on the delegates with the larger amount of votes in their control is reconmended.

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

I find repealing the original proposal in question here to be a good thing. Committee-creating bills in the GA that do little more than that are an irritant and eyesore. I believe the authors here have hit the nail on the head with the reasoning in wishing to repeal this bill, including coverage by previous legislation and various loopholes in the original legislation. In my power as WA Delegate of Skyrim, I, Elias Greyjoy, do hereby cast my vote FOR this proposal. I would like to extend my country's best wishes to the delegation from Bergnovinaia and Ossitania with their bill, and hope for a swift passage.


Elias T. Greyjoy,
Lord Reaper of House Greyjoy,
WA Delegate, Skyrim

[Bergnovinaia]

Have cast FOR the repeal.

I do hope you will write a replacement proposal though...having these things repeal then not rewritten or a blocker put in place is annoying.

If you wish for it to past, then a bit of campaining of the no voters will be required. Focus on the delegates with the larger amount of votes in their control is reconmended.

Personally, I am not wokring on any replacement. When you read the text of the repeal carefully, the goals entailed, but not achieved, by GA #204 are covered in three other pieces of GA legislation previously passed.

[Kruppian Islands]

I'm not sure whether to vote for this in order to get rid of it, or against to stay away from whatever heavy-handed legislation replaces it!

[Discoveria]

I'm not sure whether to vote for this in order to get rid of it, or against to stay away from whatever heavy-handed legislation replaces it!

"I suggest that the correct course of action is to vote for the repeal, and then vote against any future legislation that is not in your nation's interests," said Matthew.

"I am glad to see that this proposal has reached the floor and the voting tally is currently favourable. It gives me great pleasure to cast a vote FOR the repeal of a weak, practically superfluous resolution on nuclear safety."

[New Tarajan]

This resolution touch an important problem, without doubts....the Kingdom of New Tarajan already opposed its vote againts the repeal of the Nuclear Power Safety Act, but now, after a more mature reflection about it, especially about the deficit of specification of other kinds of nuclear energy as above, we're more undecided.
So, our government will take in serious consideration the option to give its vote in favor of this repeal.

[Eurussia]

Eurussia has voted in FAVOR of the General Assembly Resolution Reapeal "Nuclear Power Safety Act".
Our nation believes that the said resolution is flawed and regulatory powers are reduced to none.

Eurussia advices all WA members of the region to reconsider their votes and go in favor of this resolution.

[Zevassa]

Zevassa has voted FOR this resolution almost solely due to R#204's inability to properly define nuclear power.

It erroneously defines nuclear power as: "the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat".

While that is technically a correct definition of one facet of nuclear power, it fails to account for other forms of nuclear power, most notably fusion.

As such it is a resolution that only pertains to contemporary technology and currently accessible sources without compensating for any changes or technological advances that can and will be made. It is a self-limiting document that will, at the very least, require revision at some point in the future.

It accomplishes nothing that other existing resolutions already compensate for, and combined with the stated definition issues is essentially pointless and potentially costly/dangerous to leave on the record.

[Xaninthon]

I find that the repeal is necessary in order to increase the efficiency in which nuclear plants are run. The same rules are being forced on us from multiple places, so some of those rules must go. Xaninthon's vote will be in favor of this repeal.


Damon Abernathy
Chairman of the Xaninthon Abex

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Lothar Prolark, World Assembly Delegate and Vice President of Europeia, will be voting AYE after an initial 6/0 internal vote in favour of this action. The original proposal was pointless and, well, remains pointless to this day. And yes.... I have said exactly the same thing before.

[Constaniana]

I'm not sure whether to vote for this in order to get rid of it, or against to stay away from whatever heavy-handed legislation replaces it!

Certainly vote for. There wouldn't be any new legislation replacing it, because the Nuclear Power safety act already does things that three older GA bills originally require.

[Meritocratic States]

The Confederacy of Meritocratic States has concluded its internal debate in the Federal Parliament and votes FOR this resolution.

-Hilda Thorstein, Ambassador
Confederacy of Meritocratic States Delegate Leader, World Assembly.

[Bone Fort]

The Armed Republic of Bone Fort has voted AGAINST this repeal. The most common argument in favor of this repeal is that the resolution in question is redundant. That is not a sufficient reason for such action to be taken. This brings to mind the old saying, "If it isn't broken, why fix it?"

Any complaints on our decision may be written down and put in our complaints box. You may notice that the box is connected to a paper shedder. Don't worry, that's normal.