[DEFEATED] Repeal "On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes"

[Greater Germany]

Against.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Good. It looks like we will get to keep our loophole."

[New Bremerton]

OOC: The UK Highway Code has this to say about the words should and must. MUST is a legal requirement. SHOULD is used to establish civil liability in a court of law. I would think that courts of law in Anglophone countries would adopt this interpretation, otherwise British drivers are officially screwed. It would make sense for GenSec to do likewise.

AGAINST.

[Marxist Germany]

"This resolution is getting absolutely annihilated in the WA, I hope you're happy Mr Ambassador, oh and I've already voted against if you were asking"

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: The UK Highway Code has this to say about the words should and must. MUST is a legal requirement. SHOULD is used to establish civil liability in a court of law. I would think that courts of law in Anglophone countries would adopt this interpretation, otherwise British drivers are officially screwed. It would make sense for GenSec to do likewise.

AGAINST.

Ooc: the UK highway code is neither precedential nor helpful to us. We default to the plain meaning of word where there is a reasonable interpretation using them so as to avoid giving words special definitions. Should is permissive. It isnt relevant that it makes for bad policy, because GenSec doesn't police policy.

[Lord Dominator]

"This resolution is getting absolutely annihilated in the WA, I hope you're happy Mr Ambassador, oh and I've already voted against if you were asking"

"Thank you for the comments that I care nothing about, but it's Ms Ambassador really."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: The UK Highway Code has this to say about the words should and must. MUST is a legal requirement. SHOULD is used to establish civil liability in a court of law. I would think that courts of law in Anglophone countries would adopt this interpretation, otherwise British drivers are officially screwed. It would make sense for GenSec to do likewise.

If that's the case, then the statement that should would permit nations to do little would be untrue. Challenge the proposal for Honest mistake.

[Cosmosplosion]

OOC: The UK Highway Code has this to say about the words should and must. MUST is a legal requirement. SHOULD is used to establish civil liability in a court of law. I would think that courts of law in Anglophone countries would adopt this interpretation, otherwise British drivers are officially screwed. It would make sense for GenSec to do likewise.

If that's the case, then the statement that should would permit nations to do little would be untrue. Challenge the proposal for Honest mistake.

The only problem with that interpretation is that we're pulling it out of thin air basically - using the basic definition of "should" is more logical.

[Hijlistan Arg]

"We as representatives of Hijlistan Arg are not convinced this needs a repeal, and we have every reason to distrust proposals propped up by capitalists who enforce slavery and child labor."

[Lord Dominator]

"We as representatives of Hijlistan Arg are not convinced this needs a repeal, and we have every reason to distrust proposals propped up by capitalists who enforce slavery and child labor."

"I'll be sure to report back to my capitalist masters that the vote is failing because the commies want to leave the loopholes in. Does that make you feel better?"

Dee pulls out a small communist flag and waves it before setting it on fire

[Scherzinger]

Well if Lord Dominator & IA authored this, my choice is clear

Against

[Lord Dominator]

Your opinion is hardly unexpected given your region.

[Scherzinger]

Your opinion is hardly unexpected given your region.

would have had the same opinion regardless of my region

[Galway-Dublin]

"I do hope my respective delegations see to the resolution as a deeply flaw'd piece, and vote in favor for this repeal. While nominally I represent interests in favor of international tobacco regulation, legislation with an out like this is better repealed and replaced than taken advantage by a bad-faith government actah"

[Kenmoria]

Well if Lord Dominator & IA authored this, my choice is clear

Against

(OOC: Really? That isn’t a good way to vote on any piece of legislation. As it happens, I disagree with your stance on the repeal, as Kenmoria is a highly capitalistic nation and hates all restrictions on corporations, but if I were to agree, your reasoning is still deeply flawed. It wouldn’t matter if it was Lord Dominator or Joscopor that submitted a proposal, the actual quality would inform my vote.)

[Lord Dominator]

Your opinion is hardly unexpected given your region.

would have had the same opinion regardless of my region

I rather doubt it, or at least doubt so if you changed right now.

[Separatist Peoples]

Your opinion is hardly unexpected given your region.

Ooc: it's always amusing to see our favorite fascists taking a moral stance against players for playing the game. Layers of irony.

[Lord Dominator]

Your opinion is hardly unexpected given your region.

Ooc: it's always amusing to see our favorite fascists taking a moral stance against players for playing the game. Layers of irony.

OOC: Oh, certainly.

[Gerwig Republic]

Where it should be insisted upon the maximum amount of freedom and liberty to the individual in every country, and for the maximum understanding toward the leaders of countries and how they choose to run their own affairs internally, I would be remiss to point out the discrepancy between what has been voted into law and the intentions of this law.

Each country has it's own unique ways of managing everything from water and environment to life span of citizens. I have noticed many countries intentionally ensuring shorter life spans than could otherwise be achieved in order to prevent costly care of the elderly or infirm. This is, of course, that individual countries right to govern in such a way.

However, an international mandate on a matter which may not be as important overall as say international trade, international cooperation, individual national rights and respecting them, among countless other issues. International health and global health is a lofty and admirable goal. It is my OPINION, however, that this body should not over reach its purpose and authority by insisting everyone adhere to a base level of morality. To be gentle, it is tyrannical to legislate morality. In truth I find it fascist.

While some are fascist in their countries, not all are and this is certainly an assault on equality of nations and their individual nationhood by qualifying limitations on how they may run their own affairs by external force. My question is, does this body intend to legislate until every country becomes the same as every other like Agent Smith in the Matrix? Thank you.

[Wallenburg]

Further believing that this makes unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend which also also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions,

What does this mean? I'm not even sure this qualifies as a complete sentence.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Further believing that this makes unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend which also also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions,

What does this mean? I'm not even sure this qualifies as a complete sentence.

Well, it's definitely not a sentence, because if it were, it wouldn't fit in this kind of resolution format. But it is quite clear: the resolution would have the Assembly believe that ... the interpretation of optional resolutions with "good faith" to imply mandatory requirements ... would eliminate the scope of discretion ... under WA resolutions. That's quite intuitively true, since authors consistently use recommendations to give voice to policies they would want to do, but not in fact actually do, due to political factors. And thus arises the old "It's not required, if your objection is that it encourages X, don't do it".

[Wallenburg]

What does this mean? I'm not even sure this qualifies as a complete sentence.

Well, it's definitely not a sentence, because if it were, it wouldn't fit in this kind of resolution format. But it is quite clear: the resolution would have the Assembly believe that ... the interpretation of optional resolutions with "good faith" to imply mandatory requirements ... would eliminate the scope of discretion ... under WA resolutions. That's quite intuitively true, since authors consistently use recommendations to give voice to policies they would want to do, but not in fact actually do, due to political factors. And thus arises the old "It's not required, if your objection is that it encourages X, don't do it".

Then this clause as written is incorrect. Such an interpretation is not actually in place, so it does not have this effect. You should have used the subjunctive rather than the indicative. Just another issue in a stunningly long list of errors and shortcomings with this resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, it's definitely not a sentence, because if it were, it wouldn't fit in this kind of resolution format. But it is quite clear: the resolution would have the Assembly believe that ... the interpretation of optional resolutions with "good faith" to imply mandatory requirements ... would eliminate the scope of discretion ... under WA resolutions. That's quite intuitively true, since authors consistently use recommendations to give voice to policies they would want to do, but not in fact actually do, due to political factors. And thus arises the old "It's not required, if your objection is that it encourages X, don't do it".

Then this clause as written is incorrect. Such an interpretation is not actually in place, so it does not have this effect. You should have used the subjunctive rather than the indicative. Just another issue in a stunningly long list of errors and shortcomings with this resolution.

If you want to claim that such an interpretation is claimed by the resolution, then you should also make the connection that claiming that interpretation of the word "should" to imply obligation is a misinterpretation of the resolution and an honest mistake, thus, you should make a challenge. If you want to take that poor interpretation of the repeal text and claims to "court", I'll be happy to oblige. (Edited a word or two in case Wally's machine code doesn't parse things correctly.)

Moreover, as the clause claims things about the general world, that is an indicative statement which is true, in the same way that I can say that FTL travel will permit people to see past images of themselves with large enough telescopes.

[Gerwig Republic]

As much fun as it may be to pick apart word crimes in written proposed legislation, I'd like to place an emphasis on the fact of the matter at hand which has nothing to do with exact wording but on the principle on which the original legislation about which we are debating whether it should be repealed or not.

To this end, I would like to say any legislation in which a specific issue is targeted where said issue is not involved in international issues but rather for the edification and glorification of those who have written it and those who have voted for it as it, still being the legislation, affects the internal affairs of nations rather than the interactions of nations is an abomination and abuse of the powers of the World Assembly in my humble opinion.

I ask, what is gained by the current Tobacco legislation for the World Assembly? What issues of interest to this assembly does this legislation address and what difference would it's repeal make?

Why is this assembly spending so much precious time on an issue which should be handled internally in each respective nation and not forced upon all nations by outside forces?

This may help me better understand this assembly and whether it is a global totalitarian dictatorship with far reaching terrorist cells who will enforce its will through force or a body who prioritizes the interaction of nations and the stability of the global setting as it seems to have been intended to do.

Thank you.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: In answerance to Gerwig Republic, the legislation addressed the issue of tobacco because companies and products often span country boundaries to be international problems. Also, there exists the universal right to truthful information and, debatably, good health, so the legislation is designed to cover a global responsibility.)