[Federalist]

I received this telegram recently:
Quote: Dear UN Member,

Please consider endorsing my repeal of the resolution "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers". This resolution, while having an admirable intent to protect the environment, does so little to just that. "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers" is simply an essay arguing for the benefits of double-hulled tankers, while "asking" that nations might ban single-hulled tankers. By repealing this ambiguous resolution, we can pave the way for legislation which comprehensively protects many environmental hazards, not simply oil spills. Please consider endorsing this repeal to remove an ineffectual law from the books.

The repeal is listed here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_prop...ch=tankers

Thank you very much for your time,
The Allied Empire of Jey

P.S. We sincerely apologize if you have received notification of this repeal previously.[/quote]

What do you guys think? I pulled the proposal he's talking about, it's below.

Quote: Repeal "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #11
Proposed by: Jey

Description: UN Resolution #11: Ban Single-Hulled Tankers (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

APPLAUDING the attempts of Resolution #11: "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers" to prevent serious environmental damages involving oil tanker ships;

NOTING WITH REGRET that Resolution #11 makes no legislative effort to actually prevent the oil spills referenced to, only providing the rhetoric that the United Nations "must unite to ban single-hulled tankers and endorse the use of double-hulled tankers";

CONVINCED that serious environmental issues such as oil spills should be addressed by the United Nations with legislation that contains actionable language to fulfill its intent;

UNDERSTANDING that it is in the interests of the United Nations to eliminate legislation that contains nothing more than rhetoric;

BELIEVING that more comprehensive and effective legislation can and should be enacted to eliminate serious environmental hazards;

REPEALS Resolution #11: "Ban Single-Hulled Tankers."

[/quote]

[Gerainia]

Seems right to me. Jey isn't a GV, is he?

[Antrium]

While I think this is a good idea, I think you're allowed to support resolutions without consulting the region if you so desire. However it is more democratic this way, it's nice
(Either that or I was just a total dictator...)

That being said, I guess I don't care if this one passes or not. If the original really does just urge action, then it's fine staying as it's not doing any harm, but it doesn't hurt to prune ineffectual resolutions either. They could continue with effective legislation first though, I would have preferred that.

[Grosseschnauzer]

It'd be nice to aso pull up the original resolution that the proposal seeks to repeal.
We've had problems in the past where the characterization of a resolution targeted for repeal has turned out to be inaccurate. The fact that our delegate approves a proposal doesn't bind us as a region, so there's no harm in the long run.

I looked at the proposal queue a couple of days ago, and in 10 pages of proposals (about 50) very few were worthy of consideration; it's really sad.

Maybe we could find a clever way to use the "It's 3 am at the White House, and the phone is ringing" scanario; both the Clinton and the Obama ads were quite well done. Oh wait, maybe that can be an issue.

[Federalist]

Well I did approve it and it looks like its made quorm anyway and is in line for UN vote.

[Lloegr-Cymru]

GV?

[Gerainia]

Gatesvillian.