Page 44 of 60

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:44 am
by Wallenburg
"I'm rather disappointed at the number of delegations complaining about a loss of 'national sovereignty'. Every non-repeal resolution reduces national sovereignty. The very act of joining the World Assembly is an agreement to surrender your national sovereignty. If you don't like the core principles of World Assembly law, you would do well not to be a member at all."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:46 am
by Minskiev
Astrobolt wrote:
Jutsa wrote:"Oh? So this means that anyone can have any abortion they want for almost any reason, regardless of what a majority populace, or government,
believes is right or has a deeply held religious stance against?



"I don't see why the views of other people, or the government is at all relevant with the choice a woman would have to make."

ImperialRussia wrote:I disapprove abortion my nation needs more soldiers and workers in the work force.



"Then accept more immigrants, or provide benefits to families to encourage more births. There is no reason to oppose this resolution on the basis of population."

Minskiev wrote:The predicament with my nation is that of course we allow abortions, and if this was a law to be passed in my nation, of course it would pass. However, this is forcing nations that are strictly against abortions for reasons such as religion, patriarchy, and others to lose some sovereignty in their decision-making. If this was perhaps rewritten, then I’d vote for.


"I fail to see why we should accommodate nations who wish to violate the rights of women based on issues as antiquated as "religion, patriarchy or sovereignty."


What if the nation is PURPOSELY violating the rights of FICTIONAL women? This removes player sovereignty, and at the expense of taxpayers. You seem like an OOC simp.

"I'm rather disappointed at the number of delegations complaining about a loss of 'national sovereignty'. Every non-repeal resolution reduces national sovereignty. The very act of joining the World Assembly is an agreement to surrender your national sovereignty. If you don't like the core principles of World Assembly law, you would do well not to be a member at all."


Way to glance over the entire Security Council. Also, that simply isn’t true. For resolutions about, for example, helping the environment, that isn’t really a breach of sovereignty as is avoiding death of all nations. Plus, there isn’t really a case of “oh but I want to clean up the beaches but ALL FORESTS SHOULD PERISH!” It’s yes, help or no, don’t. But for this, it’s a whole spectrum of beliefs. For me, this means a bunch of thots running around and getting pregnant at 15, then getting off scot-free. Also, what about the religious? What happens when abortion clinics get built there, and people immigrate over to get abortions on abortion-free soil? That’s blatant interference with their beliefs. But what about interfering with anti-environment beliefs? Well, if they don’t save the environment, then eventually we’re going to die. But what if it was rape, or they have a condition where they need an abortion? Um, that’s what my hospitals are for. I don’t need more clinics for women to the point where it’s at an unnecessary expense to me just so their actions have less consequences. Plus, repeals of this resolution acknowledge necessary abortions, so it’s not like we’re completely violating women. We’re just not giving them free passes.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:46 am
by Dubrana
Godular wrote:
La xinga wrote:Yeah, it's good faith.


“If this alluded loophole is being used to shirk your nation’s responsibilities on the matter, it is by definition not good faith.”

Dubrana wrote:"The issue at hand has been brought to my personal attention. Having read the proposed legislation as the absolute head of political power in the Empire of Dubrana and the patron of the people as a whole I vehemently oppose this legislation on the grounds that in the empire we allow for abortions only in the most dire of circumstances when no other option is available. As such, we the governmental body of the empire provide for both maternity leave as well as providing for the medical costs should a surgery prove necessary for the safety of both mother and child. Excepting of course when there is absolutely no other option than abortion where in the government provides for that as well. Should the mother also not wish to continue to care for the child we have a thoroughly funded public orphanage system where the children will be carefully cared for and raised to the best of their abilities.

With this in mind, I, the emperor and sovereign of Dubrana oppose and will do everything in my nation's power to prevent such legislation to go through. This is a flagrant violation of boundaries between international and national sovereignty that I will not abide by. It is plain to see that this is a strike against even nations such as mine which do not allow for abortions simply because the mother wishes to have one, when even should we provide for and take care of both mother and child we would be forced into such an arrangement." -Emperor Jernigen of Dubrana


“Rejoice, friend! You are already out of compliance with already-passed legislation then! Why grouse about the threat of something that has already come to pass?”


"It is hardly in our desire as a nation to be outside of legality, but it is how we must be given both the way that our own laws conflict with legislation in the WA. We offer services that make it all but unnecessary while still offering as much freedom to our populace in terms of civil freedoms as possible. We believe wholeheartedly in both the rights of the mother and child, doing all that we are able to allow for both to survive, thrive and ultimately be happy under the rule of Dubrana. When we are able and it is not something that our culture is utterly against we are more than happy to comply with the ordinances of the World Assembly, we do not wish to be completely adversarial in nature but we will not compromise our morals and beliefs more than we must. But it is understandable why this may seem to be exactly that, an act of defiance, but it is the belief of our nation that by doing what we have put in place we follow within the spirit of what has been put in place while not following the letter there within."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:49 am
by Wallenburg
Dubrana wrote:
Godular wrote:
“If this alluded loophole is being used to shirk your nation’s responsibilities on the matter, it is by definition not good faith.”



“Rejoice, friend! You are already out of compliance with already-passed legislation then! Why grouse about the threat of something that has already come to pass?”


"It is hardly in our desire as a nation to be outside of legality, but it is how we must be given both the way that our own laws conflict with legislation in the WA. We offer services that make it all but unnecessary while still offering as much freedom to our populace in terms of civil freedoms as possible. We believe wholeheartedly in both the rights of the mother and child, doing all that we are able to allow for both to survive, thrive and ultimately be happy under the rule of Dubrana. When we are able and it is not something that our culture is utterly against we are more than happy to comply with the ordinances of the World Assembly, we do not wish to be completely adversarial in nature but we will not compromise our morals and beliefs more than we must. But it is understandable why this may seem to be exactly that, an act of defiance, but it is the belief of our nation that by doing what we have put in place we follow within the spirit of what has been put in place while not following the letter there within."

"The nature of World Assembly compliance is a requirement to follow the letter of the law. Following its spirit--which I very much doubt you are, based on what implications you make about your national abortion policy--does not fulfill your compliance obligations."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:52 am
by La xinga
Godular wrote:
La xinga wrote:Yeah, it's good faith.


“If this alluded loophole is being used to shirk your nation’s responsibilities on the matter, it is by definition not good faith.”

Dubrana wrote:"The issue at hand has been brought to my personal attention. Having read the proposed legislation as the absolute head of political power in the Empire of Dubrana and the patron of the people as a whole I vehemently oppose this legislation on the grounds that in the empire we allow for abortions only in the most dire of circumstances when no other option is available. As such, we the governmental body of the empire provide for both maternity leave as well as providing for the medical costs should a surgery prove necessary for the safety of both mother and child. Excepting of course when there is absolutely no other option than abortion where in the government provides for that as well. Should the mother also not wish to continue to care for the child we have a thoroughly funded public orphanage system where the children will be carefully cared for and raised to the best of their abilities.

With this in mind, I, the emperor and sovereign of Dubrana oppose and will do everything in my nation's power to prevent such legislation to go through. This is a flagrant violation of boundaries between international and national sovereignty that I will not abide by. It is plain to see that this is a strike against even nations such as mine which do not allow for abortions simply because the mother wishes to have one, when even should we provide for and take care of both mother and child we would be forced into such an arrangement." -Emperor Jernigen of Dubrana


“Rejoice, friend! You are already out of compliance with already-passed legislation then! Why grouse about the threat of something that has already come to pass?”

Leaders have the ability to decide what's good faith, every nation has their own dictionaries. The WA resolutions are not always good faith.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:56 am
by Wallenburg
La xinga wrote:Leaders have the ability to decide what's good faith, every nation has their own dictionaries. The WA resolutions are not always good faith.

"This is a very incorrect argument. 'Good faith' is not a metric for resolutions themselves, but for compliance with those resolutions. It is language used by the World Assembly to compel proper compliance with its resolutions, and thus can only be defined by the World Assembly. To define 'good faith' as 'war crimes', for instance, would itself be a bad faith interpretation of member obligations under GAR #2 III § 9."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:56 am
by Godular
Dubrana wrote:
Godular wrote:
“If this alluded loophole is being used to shirk your nation’s responsibilities on the matter, it is by definition not good faith.”



“Rejoice, friend! You are already out of compliance with already-passed legislation then! Why grouse about the threat of something that has already come to pass?”


"It is hardly in our desire as a nation to be outside of legality, but it is how we must be given both the way that our own laws conflict with legislation in the WA. We offer services that make it all but unnecessary while still offering as much freedom to our populace in terms of civil freedoms as possible. We believe wholeheartedly in both the rights of the mother and child, doing all that we are able to allow for both to survive, thrive and ultimately be happy under the rule of Dubrana. When we are able and it is not something that our culture is utterly against we are more than happy to comply with the ordinances of the World Assembly, we do not wish to be completely adversarial in nature but we will not compromise our morals and beliefs more than we must. But it is understandable why this may seem to be exactly that, an act of defiance, but it is the belief of our nation that by doing what we have put in place we follow within the spirit of what has been put in place while not following the letter there within."


“Previous resolutions already require you to provide uninhibited access to abortion services. That you have instituted measures go reduce the probability of it being deemed necessary is laudable, and in point of fact the exact aim of a resolution that I am authoring, but there will always be some circumstance where the mother might feel abortion to be a necessity. You have already done what you could, but you are required to go just a tiny bit further.”

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:57 am
by Dubrana
Wallenburg wrote:
Dubrana wrote:
"It is hardly in our desire as a nation to be outside of legality, but it is how we must be given both the way that our own laws conflict with legislation in the WA. We offer services that make it all but unnecessary while still offering as much freedom to our populace in terms of civil freedoms as possible. We believe wholeheartedly in both the rights of the mother and child, doing all that we are able to allow for both to survive, thrive and ultimately be happy under the rule of Dubrana. When we are able and it is not something that our culture is utterly against we are more than happy to comply with the ordinances of the World Assembly, we do not wish to be completely adversarial in nature but we will not compromise our morals and beliefs more than we must. But it is understandable why this may seem to be exactly that, an act of defiance, but it is the belief of our nation that by doing what we have put in place we follow within the spirit of what has been put in place while not following the letter there within."

"The nature of World Assembly compliance is a requirement to follow the letter of the law. Following its spirit--which I very much doubt you are, based on what implications you make about your national abortion policy--does not fulfill your compliance obligations."


"Then perhaps, the very nature of what has been legislated prior to my arrival in the World Assembly is inherently against the nature of many nations views and perhaps is not the way forward for many nations. To offer as many persons as possible a future and to serve the people is the very nature of a government, the people being both those currently alive and those who are yet to be born into the state. To safeguard the rights of the people both present and future is what a government should be striving for. It is in this that our government provides for as many of our people as possible, allowing for both those who chose to risk procreation and then do not desire it are offered alternative routes with complete payment provided for by the state. I can not see a reason why such an arrangement would be disagreeable as a potential alternative after all. But it would seem that compromise is not what is desired in the World assembly, only complete dominance of one ideology. As such, I believe it would be best if my nation were to leave the WA and act as an outside observer if this is the form of response to be expected for dissent against the body."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:58 am
by Heavens Reach
“Which is incorrect, as WE keep repeating.”


We understand that you keep repeating this, but you have never put forth an argument for why this would be true despite the fact that one can not, legally speaking, murder an entity that is not even a person. Perhaps you think that because a forced abortion would require some sort of assault against the person carrying the fetus that this is somehow the legal equivalent of the fetus being legally protected, but we're not really sure what you're proposing since your replies are brief, opinionated, and unsupported. You also continue to focus only on this one facet of the problem, involving legal protections, and completely sidestep the other problems we initially addressed, which you dismissed out of hand, also without consideration or argument. We're not really sure what you're trying to accomplish, other than blindly defending a resolution which has flaws. Perhaps you think admission of imperfection would hinder its chances of passing, but that presupposes that people are not intelligent enough to see through what you're doing here, which, if they put any effort into researching the arguments surrounding this legislation, they almost certainly undoubtedly are.

But we won't allow our concerns to be pared down for the purpose of rendering them petty and nonsensical. The fact remains that this legislation has no business defining personhood in the first place, that it is legally frivolous to do so, that its delineation of personhood is arbitrary, and that from this arbitrary delineation other problems, including, but not at all limited to a loss of legal protections for fetuses outside of the context of abortion (wherein the moral mandate of bodily autonomy impels abortion access). Perhaps it is polarization, but arguing these points with you has made it all the more clear to us just how outside of the scope of this legislation establishing the limits of personhood is. We are not as sure of our original decision to submit a vote for at this juncture.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:01 pm
by Wallenburg
Dubrana wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"The nature of World Assembly compliance is a requirement to follow the letter of the law. Following its spirit--which I very much doubt you are, based on what implications you make about your national abortion policy--does not fulfill your compliance obligations."

"Then perhaps, the very nature of what has been legislated prior to my arrival in the World Assembly is inherently against the nature of many nations views and perhaps is not the way forward for many nations. To offer as many persons as possible a future and to serve the people is the very nature of a government, the people being both those currently alive and those who are yet to be born into the state. To safeguard the rights of the people both present and future is what a government should be striving for. It is in this that our government provides for as many of our people as possible, allowing for both those who chose to risk procreation and then do not desire it are offered alternative routes with complete payment provided for by the state. I can not see a reason why such an arrangement would be disagreeable as a potential alternative after all. But it would seem that compromise is not what is desired in the World assembly, only complete dominance of one ideology. As such, I believe it would be best if my nation were to leave the WA and act as an outside observer if this is the form of response to be expected for dissent against the body."

"I am simply pointing out how this body's compliance apparatus functions. Whether you wish to comply or leave the World Assembly is your own choice. Wallenburg chooses to comply, even where it strongly opposes the policies this body mandates. We did not violate the mandates of the World Assembly when it banned capital punishment, and we certainly didn't feign oppression from an international ideological front when that ban was neither lifted nor lessened through compromise legislation. Wallenburg fulfilled its obligations and remained a member in good standing."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:03 pm
by Jutsa
“Intentional termination of a pregnancy without the consent of the one carrying the pregnancy is generally considered assault in the best of cases, as one has to go through the carrier in order to get to the fetus. The whole basis of this argument is that there is an erroneous assertion that this proposal legalizes even unwilling abortions, which it does not.”


"Fair point, ambassador. And while hypothetically some nations may not legislate this exception, that's possible prior to this resolution. This specific facet retracted.
I still stand by my prior mentioned points, however I do admit that my point about abortion shortly before birth was a misunderstanding of the term abortion,
believing it was the death of a fetus as opposed to early birth. Of course, we'd prefer the definition of personhood being after birth not be in the resolution, but we also understand that late-pregnency defects can be tricky and hard to predict until a certain gestational age."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:04 pm
by Dubrana
Godular wrote:
Dubrana wrote:
"It is hardly in our desire as a nation to be outside of legality, but it is how we must be given both the way that our own laws conflict with legislation in the WA. We offer services that make it all but unnecessary while still offering as much freedom to our populace in terms of civil freedoms as possible. We believe wholeheartedly in both the rights of the mother and child, doing all that we are able to allow for both to survive, thrive and ultimately be happy under the rule of Dubrana. When we are able and it is not something that our culture is utterly against we are more than happy to comply with the ordinances of the World Assembly, we do not wish to be completely adversarial in nature but we will not compromise our morals and beliefs more than we must. But it is understandable why this may seem to be exactly that, an act of defiance, but it is the belief of our nation that by doing what we have put in place we follow within the spirit of what has been put in place while not following the letter there within."


“Previous resolutions already require you to provide uninhibited access to abortion services. That you have instituted measures go reduce the probability of it being deemed necessary is laudable, and in point of fact the exact aim of a resolution that I am authoring, but there will always be some circumstance where the mother might feel abortion to be a necessity. You have already done what you could, but you are required to go just a tiny bit further.”


"While I see your point and do admit that it has some merit, I disagree on it being a necessity once the government is willing and able to provide for both the mother and child throughout pregnancy and until the child is an adult. When all will be provided for by the state at no expense to either the mother or family of those affected outside of the taxes that are already in place to provide for such national care that it is no longer a necessity but rather a desire held by the parent of the child. I would be more than happy to debate this further should you so wish as that is a proper manner for discourse on a subject to occur but I doubt I will be swayed in my belief."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:09 pm
by Dubrana
Wallenburg wrote:
Dubrana wrote:"Then perhaps, the very nature of what has been legislated prior to my arrival in the World Assembly is inherently against the nature of many nations views and perhaps is not the way forward for many nations. To offer as many persons as possible a future and to serve the people is the very nature of a government, the people being both those currently alive and those who are yet to be born into the state. To safeguard the rights of the people both present and future is what a government should be striving for. It is in this that our government provides for as many of our people as possible, allowing for both those who chose to risk procreation and then do not desire it are offered alternative routes with complete payment provided for by the state. I can not see a reason why such an arrangement would be disagreeable as a potential alternative after all. But it would seem that compromise is not what is desired in the World assembly, only complete dominance of one ideology. As such, I believe it would be best if my nation were to leave the WA and act as an outside observer if this is the form of response to be expected for dissent against the body."

"I am simply pointing out how this body's compliance apparatus functions. Whether you wish to comply or leave the World Assembly is your own choice. Wallenburg chooses to comply, even where it strongly opposes the policies this body mandates. We did not violate the mandates of the World Assembly when it banned capital punishment, and we certainly didn't feign oppression from an international ideological front when that ban was neither lifted nor lessened through compromise legislation. Wallenburg fulfilled its obligations and remained a member in good standing."


"And this is the choice that your nation has made, I however find myself unable to fulfill such compliance and choose to leave as is my right as a nation. I would encourage that discourse and discussion occur from both inside and from outside of the WA so that it might be made more amenable to those who take issue with some of it's legislation, but also hold that member nations do what is in compliance and is right and proper in the eyes of the law. I respect such decisions and have myself chosen to leave until such time as the World Assembly is more amenable to nations with views such as mine in that abortion should be made an unneeded choice and instead protect the rights of both through proper funding of medical care and post natal to adulthood care for the children given to the state on the trust that they shall be raised in an environment conducive to a well balanced childhood."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:17 pm
by Godular
Heavens Reach wrote:
“Which is incorrect, as WE keep repeating.”


We understand that you keep repeating this, but you have never put forth an argument for why this would be true despite the fact that one can not, legally speaking, murder an entity that is not even a person. Perhaps you think that because a forced abortion would require some sort of assault against the person carrying the fetus that this is somehow the legal equivalent of the fetus being legally protected, but we're not really sure what you're proposing since your replies are brief, opinionated, and unsupported. You also continue to focus only on this one facet of the problem, involving legal protections, and completely sidestep the other problems we initially addressed, which you dismissed out of hand, also without consideration or argument. We're not really sure what you're trying to accomplish, other than blindly defending a resolution which has flaws. Perhaps you think admission of imperfection would hinder its chances of passing, but that presupposes that people are not intelligent enough to see through what you're doing here, which, if they put any effort into researching the arguments surrounding this legislation, they almost certainly undoubtedly are.

But we won't allow our concerns to be pared down for the purpose of rendering them petty and nonsensical. The fact remains that this legislation has no business defining personhood in the first place, that it is legally frivolous to do so, that its delineation of personhood is arbitrary, and that from this arbitrary delineation other problems, including, but not at all limited to a loss of legal protections for fetuses outside of the context of abortion (where bodily autonomy requires abortion access). Perhaps it is polarization, but arguing these points with you has made it all the more clear to us just how outside of the scope of this legislation establishing the limits of personhood is. We are not as sure of our original decision to vote for at this juncture.


“You keep claiming that the comments on personhood somehow make it okay to end the life of a fetus without regard for the consent of the carrier. This is a flawed assertion that has already been addressed in previous resolutions. Terminating a pregnancy without the carrier’s consent is a violation of the carrier’s rights and can-and-should be prosecuted accordingly. None of my commentary has involved the personhood of the fetus, though I will point out that withholding personhood until birth ensures that a large number of legal side issues are functionally rendered moot.

“An example of this would be that enormous sentient bat that spoke some time back.”

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:24 pm
by Godular
Dubrana wrote:
Godular wrote:
“Previous resolutions already require you to provide uninhibited access to abortion services. That you have instituted measures go reduce the probability of it being deemed necessary is laudable, and in point of fact the exact aim of a resolution that I am authoring, but there will always be some circumstance where the mother might feel abortion to be a necessity. You have already done what you could, but you are required to go just a tiny bit further.”


"While I see your point and do admit that it has some merit, I disagree on it being a necessity once the government is willing and able to provide for both the mother and child throughout pregnancy and until the child is an adult. When all will be provided for by the state at no expense to either the mother or family of those affected outside of the taxes that are already in place to provide for such national care that it is no longer a necessity but rather a desire held by the parent of the child. I would be more than happy to debate this further should you so wish as that is a proper manner for discourse on a subject to occur but I doubt I will be swayed in my belief."


“Some pregnancies are unwanted due to psychological ramifications. Your support for pregnancy retention, while laudable, cannot address those concerns. It should be enough for you to offer such measures while still leaving the option to abort a pregnancy open to those who feel it necessary.”

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:28 pm
by Godular
Jutsa wrote:
“Intentional termination of a pregnancy without the consent of the one carrying the pregnancy is generally considered assault in the best of cases, as one has to go through the carrier in order to get to the fetus. The whole basis of this argument is that there is an erroneous assertion that this proposal legalizes even unwilling abortions, which it does not.”


"Fair point, ambassador. And while hypothetically some nations may not legislate this exception, that's possible prior to this resolution. This specific facet retracted.
I still stand by my prior mentioned points, however I do admit that my point about abortion shortly before birth was a misunderstanding of the term abortion,
believing it was the death of a fetus as opposed to early birth. Of course, we'd prefer the definition of personhood being after birth not be in the resolution, but we also understand that late-pregnency defects can be tricky and hard to predict until a certain gestational age."


“Also, as the enormous bat in the back has made clear previously, it avoids any possibility of legal repercussions against the offspring that emerges from the uterine attrition involved in their reproductive processes. It really is there simply for the sake of simplicity.”

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:31 pm
by Dubrana
Godular wrote:
Dubrana wrote:
"While I see your point and do admit that it has some merit, I disagree on it being a necessity once the government is willing and able to provide for both the mother and child throughout pregnancy and until the child is an adult. When all will be provided for by the state at no expense to either the mother or family of those affected outside of the taxes that are already in place to provide for such national care that it is no longer a necessity but rather a desire held by the parent of the child. I would be more than happy to debate this further should you so wish as that is a proper manner for discourse on a subject to occur but I doubt I will be swayed in my belief."


“Some pregnancies are unwanted due to psychological ramifications. Your support for pregnancy retention, while laudable, cannot address those concerns. It should be enough for you to offer such measures while still leaving the option to abort a pregnancy open to those who feel it necessary.”


"Again, I will agree to some degree. It is in this that I believe that psychological therapy should also be provided, and should that prove to be ineffective that there should be an ability to apply for a waiving of the standards. While I disagree in general at the idea of allowing for abortions unless long term injury, be it psychological or physical, are at risk with no chance that therapy or medical technology could assist it is the right of each nation and ultimately the people of that nation to decide through the ruler. But, I am glad that we could at the very least remain civil about our disagreement."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:36 pm
by United Massachusetts
The World Assembly continues to grasp at a sovereignty it never enjoyed to begin with. Unsurprising.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:00 pm
by Attempted Socialism
United Massachusetts wrote:The World Assembly continues to grasp at a sovereignty it never enjoyed to begin with. Unsurprising.

Don't worry, this will never get to a vote. I saw someone reiterate it earlier.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:02 pm
by Godular
Attempted Socialism wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:The World Assembly continues to grasp at a sovereignty it never enjoyed to begin with. Unsurprising.

Don't worry, this will never get to a vote. I saw someone reiterate it earlier.


“I believe there were even pictures describing how at-vote it cannot get!”

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:02 pm
by Prussian-Germany
I feel like this should be for the independent nations to decide, not for the World Assembly.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:02 pm
by United Massachusetts
Attempted Socialism wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:The World Assembly continues to grasp at a sovereignty it never enjoyed to begin with. Unsurprising.

Don't worry, this will never get to a vote. I saw someone reiterate it earlier.

It did, unfortunately. I happened to be away for a few days right when this submitted attending to RL matters. It looks as though TNP propped this up to vote by installing delegates.

It is unfortunate, needless to say.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:11 pm
by Attempted Socialism
United Massachusetts wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:Don't worry, this will never get to a vote. I saw someone reiterate it earlier.

It did, unfortunately. I happened to be away for a few days right when this submitted attending to RL matters. It looks as though TNP propped this up to vote by installing delegates.

It is unfortunate, needless to say.

By "unfortunate" I am sure you refer to the roughly 1/3rd voting against this exemplary, inspirational and ethical resolution. I agree; I had hoped for something better than 6:1.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:13 pm
by Praeceps
United Massachusetts wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:Don't worry, this will never get to a vote. I saw someone reiterate it earlier.

It did, unfortunately. I happened to be away for a few days right when this submitted attending to RL matters. It looks as though TNP propped this up to vote by installing delegates.

It is unfortunate, needless to say.

Those dastardly TNPers. Someone should probably try to coup them again heh?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:15 pm
by Godular
Praeceps wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:It did, unfortunately. I happened to be away for a few days right when this submitted attending to RL matters. It looks as though TNP propped this up to vote by installing delegates.

It is unfortunate, needless to say.

Those dastardly TNPers. Someone should probably try to coup them again heh?


“Re-couping losses, hmm?”