[DEFEATED] Repeal: Stock Exchanges and Foreign Investment

[Wallenburg]

I voted against this. It is terribly written and attacks the target on subjects that the target has nothing to do with.

[The Atlae Isles]

I vote against (on my WA nation that is). I disagree with the fundamental premise of this repeal.

[Adriatican]

As the Chair of the International Securities and Exchange Commission created by World Assembly General Resolution #401, I adamantly urge my fellow W.A Members to vote against this misguided and inaccurate attempt at repeal.

G.A #401 urges, and is working, to make global markets safer, freer, and more open to the average consumer, we must not forsake this on whim.

[Tzorsland]

We have studied this repeal at great length and we are surprised that a repeal this complex could even find enough morons to read through it enough to get its approval. While we do not reject the repeal because of it's length, we know it has a snowball's chance on the surface of most stars of actually passing based on its length alone. Remember most people are too lazy to write out "too long; didn't read." (tl;dr)

It seems that the repeal author gets perplexed easily. Considering the length of his proposal, that's not always a good thing. I would normally write something about how currency exchanges are necessary for all international interactions that crosses currency boundaries, but that too is too long for most people to read. I'd "pound" it into your head but it still won't make "cents."

[Evil Eagle]

As per usual I will vote against this. We should have never passed it in the first place. 1/2 of our work is in repealing laws that pass without proper consideration when we pass them. Until I see a change in this habit, I will vote against all resolutions to pass or repeal. Then only repeal. Then only the most well constructed resolutions. How is any nation supposed to know how to comply with our wayward back and forth bureaucratic busy work? A nation changes laws, spends funds, withstands the ire of opposition to comply. Then it is notified that it was all a waste of time and money because we can't make up our minds. The world expects and deserves better.

[Araraukar]

As per usual I will vote against this. We should have never passed it in the first place.

If you opposed the target resolution, then you should be voting for the repeal.

[Tzorsland]

If you opposed the target resolution, then you should be voting for the repeal.

If one were to vote for a repeal simply because they did not like a resolution, then why bother with a repeal argument?

Repeals can NEVER be struck out. The arguments in a repeal remain precedent for future repeals FOREVER. Generations from now people will be looking at horrid repeals and actually thinking them the model of all things bright and beautiful.

If a repeal argument is horrid, vote against it and hope another one is coming down the tracks in a few minutes. Repeals are like buses, they always seem to come in pairs. Why get stuck in that crammed one because it arrived first?

[Araraukar]

If one were to vote for a repeal simply because they did not like a resolution, then why bother with a repeal argument?

If you don't like a resolution that just passed, it would only be logical to vote for its repeal.

OOC: As far as I could see, they were mostly complaining about the quick pass-repeal cycle of recent months, rather than the repeal argument being bad. I personally agree with you that bad repeals shouldn't be the ones to repeal bad resolutions, but that's not how Janis sees it.

[Covenstone]

I admit, I really thought we were about to see another Pass/Repeal bit of insanity. But the repeal was defeated by a much wider margin than the resolution was originally passed. So I guess The WA has spoken.

"Repeal "Stock Exchanges and Foreign investment"" was defeated 10,598 votes to 4,843.

[Araraukar]

So I guess The WA has spoken.

The WA not liking a particular repeal doesn't equate to the WA liking its target resolution, though.

[Covenstone]

So I guess The WA has spoken.

The WA not liking a particular repeal doesn't equate to the WA liking its target resolution, though.

*shrug* Either way, at least we didn't have another resolution being repealed before it was passed (Yes, I am using exaggeration to prove a point.)

[Wallenburg]

The WA not liking a particular repeal doesn't equate to the WA liking its target resolution, though.

*shrug* Either way, at least we didn't have another resolution being repealed before it was passed (Yes, I am using exaggeration to prove a point.)

You aren't proving any point, though. You're just exaggerating.

[Uan aa Boa]

So I guess The WA has spoken.

It has indeed. Thanks to everyone for their consideration of my proposal. It's been a learning experience and I hope my next one (on another topic) will do better as a result.

[Wealthatonia]

So I guess The WA has spoken.

It has indeed. Thanks to everyone for their consideration of my proposal. It's been a learning experience and I hope my next one (on another topic) will do better as a result.

I think I'll buy majority stock in your nation's market now.

[Uan aa Boa]

I think I'll buy majority stock in your nation's market now.

Yes, well, we don't have a market or any private enterprise so good luck with that. As a token of goodwill, however, we're sending you two dozen attractive yet practical handwoven baskets featuring a charming triple twined hammer and sickle motif.

[Wealthatonia]

I think I'll buy majority stock in your nation's market now.

Yes, well, we don't have a market or any private enterprise so good luck with that. As a token of goodwill, however, we're sending you two dozen attractive yet practical handwoven baskets featuring a charming triple twined hammer and sickle motif.

We don't want your baskets! We want your money!