[Passed] Repeal "Chemical Weapons Protocol"

[The Dourian Embassy]

So that's why I was getting worked up. If you're saying this isn't for an immediate attempt at quorum, then I am much less concerned.

Ahh yes. Well, as I said, I'd like to add Chester as a co-author. So I won't be taking it to queue on this run through.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Well, I'm certainly glad you suggested I post to his thread, given how warm and receptive he proved.

Douria, if this is the track that's going to be taken, then I'm just not interested in supporting this repeal at all.

[The Dourian Embassy]

OOC: Well, I'm certainly glad you suggested I post to his thread, given how warm and receptive he proved.

Douria, if this is the track that's going to be taken, then I'm just not interested in supporting this repeal at all.

I saw that, and I completely understand. I'm sorry to lose your support, but I still think this is a good idea.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: 72 approvals in 6 hours. Fucking. Hell.

I'm really going to have to check this TG system out, because it's clearly a game-changer.

As for the repeal, I realize you want it judged on its own merits, but it's incredibly hard to separate it from the flawed and faulty replacement it is designed to facilitate. As such, I'm only likely to support it in the hope that the latter will fail.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: 72 approvals in 6 hours. Fucking. Hell.

I'm really going to have to check this TG system out, because it's clearly a game-changer.

It apparently is, yes... although bearing in mind how many approvals SLoH managed to gain in the c.36 hours or so (Can't find my file on the subject, right now, to get the exact details...) before I sent any TGs at all, maybe the delegates are currently feeling more "generous" than usual anyway?

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Well, his almost identical repeal submitted a few days ago gathered nowhere near as many, and was in queue for all 4 days - so, no, clearly it is the TG campaign at work.

Successfully, too:

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

[The Dourian Embassy]

It's a funny thing. The zombie event in April(and the only proposal to ever get deleted from vote) showed me that when the folks are active, you can get something to quorum in hardly any time.

I got similar results back on Condemn Horrible Zombies with a manual TG campaign(or it might've been Auralia's script, it's been a while).

Regardless, this is headed to vote very soon. So that's nice.

Edit: I pulled the old one a day ahead of time because I was worried it would get in queue on its own, actually. Just FYI.

[Mosktopia]

This is now at vote.

When even the author of a resolution has turned on it, there can be little doubt that at least one quite serious flaw afflicts the law. However, the fact that an author no longer cares for their work is not, by itself, reason for repeal.

Since the Chemical Weapons Protocol does include an exception for riot control agents, we would like some examples of the "non-lachrymatory" agents that the Dourian Embassy says are unfairly restricted by the resolution. We also feel that, while it is true that nearly any chemical can, by its properties, cause death or severe harm, we think that the "toxic" qualifier renders that argument moot. Yes, water is a chemical, and yes, it can cause death or severe harm by its properties. But it's not toxic, and hence would not be regulated by the Chemical Weapons Protocol.

Still, we can see how defining a chemical as a weapon based on its "capabilities" and not on its design is problematic, and taken together with the stated aim of improving the law and the fact that even the resolution's author agrees there's a problem, we find that a case has been made for repeal. Accordingly, Mosktopia votes FOR the repeal.

[The Black Hat Guy]

I'm hesitantly supporting this. I think that the flaws in this law aren't as great as the repeal makes them out to be (though that can be said of virtually any repeal, so meh), but I don't have a problem with passing a better one.

Just so long as the better one is actually passed. Too many times I've seen a law repealed with the promise of a better replacement only to see that replacement never come.

[The Akashic Records]

Given that there is already a replacement in the works, we have cast a vote FOR this repeal.

[Sternberg]

The Counsel for the Cabinet of the Constitutional Monarchy of Sternberg wishes to regretfully inform the General Assembly that a precautionary AGAINST vote will be cast by this nation.

While the controversial nature of the Chemical Weapons Protocol can be understood, we must strongly emphasise that the previous passage of GA 226 clearly demonstrates that there is a demand for such protocol to remain in place.

If the repealing of this legislation is so that an expansion and clarification of said legislation can be conducted, our government will support such an effort on the strictest understanding that the core protocols and spirit of the CWP must remain in entirety. However, if this repeal is purely based in immoral or illegal means or purposes, then we can not and will not support this action on ANY grounds.

Lord H. Melverry
Counsel
Sternberg Legislative Cabinet

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm not understanding the reasoning for the repeal.

I seem to recall the apparent issues being brought up being rather explicitly refuted by myself, Chester Pearson and others during the course of reaching quorum and vote.

I'm also quite intrigued by having almost ten thousand votes in the first day of voting, seven thousand being against.
Was there a campaign for this, or is this just elements of the WA relieved that their chemical weapons are now unregulated?

[Krakadarek]

I just want to know:
My nation not a member of the WA, so does this mean Krakadarek will have to follow these laws?
I would say no.

[The Akashic Records]

I just want to know:
My nation not a member of the WA, so does this mean Krakadarek will have to follow these laws?
I would say no.

Might I suggest reading through the Passed World Assembly Resolutions, especially the Rights and Duties of WA States? And especially, since you're not a member, how does it concern you?

[Krakadarek]

I just want to know:
My nation not a member of the WA, so does this mean Krakadarek will have to follow these laws?
I would say no.

Might I suggest reading through the Passed World Assembly Resolutions, especially the Rights and Duties of WA States? And especially, since you're not a member, how does it concern you?

I mean as a non WA member, will i be expected top get rid of my chemical weapons?
Or do these resolutions only aply to WA members?

[Bears Armed]

I mean as a non WA member, will i be expected top get rid of my chemical weapons?
Or do these resolutions only aply to WA members?

They only apply to members.

[Krakadarek]

I mean as a non WA member, will i be expected top get rid of my chemical weapons?
Or do these resolutions only aply to WA members?

They only apply to members.

Thank you.
PS, why do you hate chemical weapons?
How you seen what they put in food these day? BRRRR!!!! (<DR Thrax)

[Imperializt Russia]

They only apply to members.

Thank you.
PS, why do you hate chemical weapons?
How you seen what they put in food these day? BRRRR!!!! (<DR Thrax)

Note that a Repeal of the Chemical Weapon Protocol will actually de-regulate chemical weapons completely.
A plan to immediately enter a modified form, the Chemical Weapon Act, submits a very similar resolution.

[Chester Pearson]

I mean as a non WA member, will i be expected to get rid of my chemical weapons?

No nation was required to get rid of their chemical weapon stockpiles under the protocol anyway.....

[Krakadarek]

Thank you.
PS, why do you hate chemical weapons?
How you seen what they put in food these day? BRRRR!!!! (<DR Thrax)

Note that a Repeal of the Chemical Weapon Protocol will actually de-regulate chemical weapons completely.
A plan to immediately enter a modified form, the Chemical Weapon Act, submits a very similar resolution.

And what would it mean if it de-regulates chemical weapons?

[Imperializt Russia]

Note that a Repeal of the Chemical Weapon Protocol will actually de-regulate chemical weapons completely.
A plan to immediately enter a modified form, the Chemical Weapon Act, submits a very similar resolution.

And what would it mean if it de-regulates chemical weapons?

There would be no regulation on them at all.

[Zarkanians]

Note that a Repeal of the Chemical Weapon Protocol will actually de-regulate chemical weapons completely.
A plan to immediately enter a modified form, the Chemical Weapon Act, submits a very similar resolution.

And what would it mean if it de-regulates chemical weapons?

For the period of time in which they remain unregulated, you can fire off as many Sarin Gas missiles as you want without any sort of repercussion. You could have done that anyway, considering you're non-WA. You don't even have to worry about complying with the other legislation the WA has passed on warfare.

[Krakadarek]

And what would it mean if it de-regulates chemical weapons?

For the period of time in which they remain unregulated, you can fire off as many Sarin Gas missiles as you want without any sort of repercussion. You could have done that anyway, considering you're non-WA. You don't even have to worry about complying with the other legislation the WA has passed on warfare.

So all WA laws have no effect on my whatsoever?

[Bears Armed]

So all WA laws have no effect on my whatsoever?

That's generally true, but a few of the passed resolutions offer you certain specified benefits -- such as reciprocal treatment by members, or access to WA agencies' services -- if your government chooses voluntarily to comply with them anyway.

[Krakadarek]

So all WA laws have no effect on my whatsoever?

That's generally true, but a few of the passed resolutions offer you certain specified benefits -- such as reciprocal treatment by members, or access to WA agencies' services -- if your government chooses voluntarily to comply with them anyway.

Yes, and your point would be?