NATION

PASSWORD

[DISCARDED] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8262
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

[DISCARDED] Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:30 am

Image
Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction"
Category: Repeal



This august World Assembly,

Concerned that the target resolution requires nations to prosecute in section 3, but that the target does not also require that nations provide prosecutors with information they may have, meaning that the target sets up a prosecutorial scheme where nations may be prosecuting persons without a full accounting of the facts,

Observing that section 7 of the target resolution “[f]orbids the World Assembly from preempting a member state’s claim to universal jurisdiction under this resolution, including but not limited to through an international criminal court or a substantially similar institution”,

Seeing that it is patently obvious that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court,

Believing that a lack of such a court means:

  1. there are few prosecutions of war criminals and perpetrators of genocide, since (i) prosecutorial discretion exists, due to differing interpretations of section 3(c) and (ii) such criminals and perpetrators would not willingly move themselves to jurisdictions which would prosecute them and

  2. victims of war crimes and other crimes against humanity are unlikely to receive justice, as even when prosecutions occur, they will likely be in friendly jurisdictions, meaning that they will be slaps on the wrist,
Expressing its discontent at this state of affairs, where criminality of the worst degree is not punished and where the international rules-based order is unable to deter or bring justice to would-be tyrants from engaging in mass murder or other heinous crimes,

Saddened at the deaths caused by the Assembly’s inability to act and the incredible injustices that the Assembly is unable to take action to right, and

Calling for the creation of a compulsory, fair, and effective international tribunal to resolve these issues, hereby:

Repeals GA 312 “On Universal Jurisdiction”.
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8262
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:30 am

Reserved.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:34 am

Calling for the creation of an compulsory, fair, and effective international tribunal to resolve these issues, hereby:

OOC:This might or might not be seen as legislating in a repeal and I would recommend asking the Secretariat about this.

IC:Do you have a replacement ready? If so, where is it?

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8262
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:38 am

Old Hope wrote:OOC:This might or might not be seen as legislating in a repeal and I would recommend asking the Secretariat about this.

That part isn't. We've already passed resolutions with the term in it. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=32730365&hilit=repeal#p32730365. And that matter didn't come up last time when the faction in the WA which hates enforcement of (cough) On Abortion and Reproductive Freedoms (cough) threw every legality challenge they could think up last time.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17319
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:05 am

OOC: "Calling for" does look a bit stronger than I'd really be happy with in the context of that rule. "Hoping for" has more commonly been used, and considered acceptable, in the past.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3004
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Nov 05, 2018 6:41 am

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: "Calling for" does look a bit stronger than I'd really be happy with in the context of that rule. "Hoping for" has more commonly been used, and considered acceptable, in the past.


OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for."

IC: "Ambassador, I sure would replace the word 'malcontent' with something else - you probably want 'discontent.' A malcontent is a person, and moreover a person who stirs up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble, a professional outrage machine and a rebel without a cause - or rather, with any cause that looks like it might score political points. Whereas discontent is a feeling, a motivation, and a will to sincerely fix things."

"Also you've got a rogue 'an' - as opposed to 'a' - in the last line there, next to 'compulsory.'"

"Support."
Principal-Agent & Master of Duck Recipes, Anarchy
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Old Hope
Diplomat
 
Posts: 712
Founded: Sep 21, 2014
Tyranny by Majority

Postby Old Hope » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:01 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC: "Calling for" does look a bit stronger than I'd really be happy with in the context of that rule. "Hoping for" has more commonly been used, and considered acceptable, in the past.


OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for."

IC: "Ambassador, I sure would replace the word 'malcontent' with something else - you probably want 'discontent.' A malcontent is a person, and moreover a person who stirs up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble, a professional outrage machine and a rebel without a cause - or rather, with any cause that looks like it might score political points. Whereas discontent is a feeling, a motivation, and a will to sincerely fix things."

"Also you've got a rogue 'an' - as opposed to 'a' - in the last line there, next to 'compulsory.'"

"Support."

OOC:Precedent? Or a proposal becoming a resolution without a specific legality challenge? The latter isn't precedent, normally(as it could be a missed illegality).

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17319
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:01 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for.

OOC
*<checks>*
I seem to have posted only once -- and that very briefly -- in that resolution's thread, for some reason (which, by now, I can't remember; probably, during that stage of that year, RL wearing me out), and apparently overlooked the point then. From what I can see, nobody else raised the point either and there certainly doesn't seem to be any GenSec ruling there that such wording was okay. Without a ruling to show, does that use actually count as a precedent rather than just as something that slipped through without being challenged?
Last edited by Bears Armed on Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8262
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:30 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC: "Calling for" does look a bit stronger than I'd really be happy with in the context of that rule. "Hoping for" has more commonly been used, and considered acceptable, in the past.


OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for."

IC: "Ambassador, I sure would replace the word 'malcontent' with something else - you probably want 'discontent.' A malcontent is a person, and moreover a person who stirs up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble, a professional outrage machine and a rebel without a cause - or rather, with any cause that looks like it might score political points. Whereas discontent is a feeling, a motivation, and a will to sincerely fix things."

"Also you've got a rogue 'an' - as opposed to 'a' - in the last line there, next to 'compulsory.'"

"Support."

Done.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3004
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:41 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for.

OOC
*<checks>*
I seem to have posted only once -- and that very briefly -- in that resolution's thread, for some reason (which, by now, I can't remember; probably, during that stage of that year, RL wearing me out), and apparently overlooked the point then. From what I can see, nobody else raised the point either and there certainly doesn't seem to be any GenSec ruling there that such wording was okay. Without a ruling to show, does that use actually count as a precedent rather than just as something that slipped through without being challenged?


I mean, I suppose the latter is the most that can be forcefully argued. But I'm disinclined to be too much of a hardass re: such a minor point of wording (would we call "calling for" an operative clause in an original resolution? I kind of doubt it - it's a rhetorical display of piety in every place it's used), and the plain fact is that it went through before without anyone seeing an issue with it. But it's not a hill I recommend anyone dying on.
Principal-Agent & Master of Duck Recipes, Anarchy
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5500
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:43 am

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for

OOC: Apples and oranges. “Calling for” the WA to come up with a replacement for a repealed resolution IMO is perfectly fine. This proposal is calling for a tribunal to be created, and that’s clearly legislating in a repeal.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19053
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:51 am

Wrapper wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: There's recent precedent for "calling for

OOC: Apples and oranges. “Calling for” the WA to come up with a replacement for a repealed resolution IMO is perfectly fine. This proposal is calling for a tribunal to be created, and that’s clearly legislating in a repeal.

OOC: This is a fair distinction, but even so the act of calling for such a tribunal does not cause it to exist, in the same manner that calling for a replacement resolution does not cause replacement legislation to exist. Unless you can prove that this clause has some immediate effect on member states, then I cannot find merit for an argument that this legislates within a repeal.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8262
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:53 am

I was going to respond with something that said something like the above, but I saw that I had been ninja'ed by exactly what I wanted to say.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Wrapper
Senior Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5500
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Wrapper » Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:00 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Wrapper wrote:OOC: Apples and oranges. “Calling for” the WA to come up with a replacement for a repealed resolution IMO is perfectly fine. This proposal is calling for a tribunal to be created, and that’s clearly legislating in a repeal.

OOC: This is a fair distinction, but even so the act of calling for such a tribunal does not cause it to exist, in the same manner that calling for a replacement resolution does not cause replacement legislation to exist. Unless you can prove that this clause has some immediate effect on member states, then I cannot find merit for an argument that this legislates within a repeal.

Perhaps not, but neither does an URGES clause or a RECOMMENDS clause, which are legislative in nature. I suppose it’s up to GenSec where to draw the line. I, for one, trust their judgement. :)

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11973
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:44 am

Wallenburg wrote:
Wrapper wrote:OOC: Apples and oranges. “Calling for” the WA to come up with a replacement for a repealed resolution IMO is perfectly fine. This proposal is calling for a tribunal to be created, and that’s clearly legislating in a repeal.
OOC: This is a fair distinction, but even so the act of calling for such a tribunal does not cause it to exist, in the same manner that calling for a replacement resolution does not cause replacement legislation to exist. Unless you can prove that this clause has some immediate effect on member states, then I cannot find merit for an argument that this legislates within a repeal.
Wrapper wrote:Perhaps not, but neither does an URGES clause or a RECOMMENDS clause, which are legislative in nature.

OOC: Perhaps not surprising that I agree with Wrapper on this one; "calling for the creation of a committee" would likely be not challenged (legally, I mean; though people would likely point out that it should read "calls" instead) in a mild proposal, especially if there was an additional active clause, and repeals get one even if it wasn't written into it (in this case it has been). Changing it to "hoping" would make it okay, as would be changing it to "calling for legislation to create".

EDIT: Though I have to say that this, again, looks very much like something that IA writes up with the exact purpose of getting a precedent to abuse later.
Last edited by Araraukar on Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19053
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:51 am

I will certainly agree that the current wording is sub-optimal, and that it would better be replaced by something like "anticipating" or "hoping for" or "supporting".
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2060
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:31 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
*<checks>*
I seem to have posted only once -- and that very briefly -- in that resolution's thread, for some reason (which, by now, I can't remember; probably, during that stage of that year, RL wearing me out), and apparently overlooked the point then. From what I can see, nobody else raised the point either and there certainly doesn't seem to be any GenSec ruling there that such wording was okay. Without a ruling to show, does that use actually count as a precedent rather than just as something that slipped through without being challenged?


I mean, I suppose the latter is the most that can be forcefully argued. But I'm disinclined to be too much of a hardass re: such a minor point of wording (would we call "calling for" an operative clause in an original resolution? I kind of doubt it - it's a rhetorical display of piety in every place it's used), and the plain fact is that it went through before without anyone seeing an issue with it. But it's not a hill I recommend anyone dying on.


I'm reasonably certain that it was long ago established that the mere passage of a potentially offending phrase or provision is not counted as precedent. Or at least that it has been accepted around here for so long, that it doesn't need mentioning.

But in any case I agree that the particular clause would be meaningless and count neither as an operative clause nor a preambular clause (sort of like section 8, GAR#213) in a resolution. If it's not an operative clause in a resolution, then it's not an operative clause in a repeal. It would make no sense to count the WA urging itself to do something as a valid operative clause.
Last edited by Bananaistan on Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8262
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:32 pm

Araraukar wrote:EDIT: Though I have to say that this, again, looks very much like something that IA writes up with the exact purpose of getting a precedent to abuse later.

Have you even followed events in the Assembly recently? This was already at vote. "I have to say that this, again, looks very much like something that Ara and co. pull out of their hats to derail actual authors." Oh also, about that claim that I'm some kind malicious legality challenger, please, look at the GenSec catalogue again and look at who files the most challenges. Next, I'm also profoundly unclear about what you think is the scope of "abuse". There isn't one. I don't think it's in fact at all possible to argue that such a scope has an area greater than zero, insofar as my passing a resolution with Calling for doesn't also magically spawn another resolution on the same topic. So please, take your fear mongering about the Caravan of IA test cases approaching the WA border someplace else.

And not only that, but Calling for has already been enacted. When I called for replacement, one didn't magically appear in the resolution books. If it had, that'd be one hell of a trick. And I would guarantee that half the forum would have then spent every waking moment trying to get it ruled illegal after the fact.

But more broadly, this is one of those cases which comes down to whether the Secretariat should purposefully interpret resolutions to be illegal. I guess the crowd that doesn't write resolutions and lives here to play Rules lawyer is back for more courtroom drama. Insofar as (1) the Secretariat doesn't purposefully interpret resolutions to be illegal and (2) the WA calling for things doesn't automagically make them happen, this isn't an actual controversy. Again, on this topic, Gruen was right.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11973
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:02 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Araraukar wrote:EDIT: Though I have to say that this, again, looks very much like something that IA writes up with the exact purpose of getting a precedent to abuse later.

*snip*

OOC: You have yourself admitted on at least two different drafts that you wrote them exactly so they'd be challenged and you would get a verdict, without caring what exactly the verdict was going to be. A "win-win" situation for you.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8262
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:06 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: You have yourself admitted on at least two different drafts that you wrote them exactly so they'd be challenged and you would get a verdict, without caring what exactly the verdict was going to be. A "win-win" situation for you.

This just in, settling matters one way or the other is bad. And we should endeavour at all possible to keep the actual rules we follow as ambiguous as possible, so that we can have repetitive time-wasting debates over what the proposal rules are.

Author: 1 SC and 24 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and Regional Records
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Cosmopolitan borovan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1033
Founded: Jan 18, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Cosmopolitan borovan » Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:01 pm

bump

User avatar
Furry Things
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Feb 12, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Furry Things » Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:17 pm

It seems like this went from drafting to submitted quite fast, with the only real discussion being an argument about the semantics of the word. Reading the proposal itself, I was of two minds about it, but without more time in drafting, I find myself against this proposal at this time.

User avatar
Cosmopolitan borovan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1033
Founded: Jan 18, 2018
Father Knows Best State

Postby Cosmopolitan borovan » Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:20 pm

Furry Things wrote:It seems like this went from drafting to submitted quite fast, with the only real discussion being an argument about the semantics of the word. Reading the proposal itself, I was of two minds about it, but without more time in drafting, I find myself against this proposal at this time.

There was a earlier attempt from the same resolution
Discarded Repeal On Universal Jurisdiction but it got discarded for illegality.

User avatar
Furry Things
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Feb 12, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Furry Things » Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:26 pm

Cosmopolitan borovan wrote:
Furry Things wrote:It seems like this went from drafting to submitted quite fast, with the only real discussion being an argument about the semantics of the word. Reading the proposal itself, I was of two minds about it, but without more time in drafting, I find myself against this proposal at this time.

There was a earlier attempt from the same resolution
Discarded Repeal On Universal Jurisdiction but it got discarded for illegality.

You're correct. I forgot about that. At this point, I think I'm back to my previous stance on this issue as last time. Without proposed replacement legislation and no sign of one in the drafting stages, I'm still going to be against for now.

User avatar
Battlion
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 441
Founded: Aug 01, 2011
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Battlion » Thu Nov 15, 2018 4:58 am

Furry Things wrote:
Cosmopolitan borovan wrote:There was a earlier attempt from the same resolution
Discarded Repeal On Universal Jurisdiction but it got discarded for illegality.

You're correct. I forgot about that. At this point, I think I'm back to my previous stance on this issue as last time. Without proposed replacement legislation and no sign of one in the drafting stages, I'm still going to be against for now.


Agreed with this, I need to see a potential replacement first.
Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authortarian: -2.21

Senator Euàn Welder - (Former Minister of Commerce & Industry/Deputy Prime Minister/Chief Whip of Democratic Left)
Justice Valeria Eshendert - (Supreme Court Justice)
The Tea Admin (Seriously, I'm an Admin - TG me for anything)

NSGS Democratic Left - The party for Justice, Equality, Liberty, and the People!
"Least worst member of the Progress Coalition" - Belmaria

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Islamic Republic e Jariri, Omigodtheykilledkenny, United American Regions

Advertisement

Remove ads