Search results

Against

For. Well made argument so I see no reason why this shouldn't pass.

In terms of NS only, one cannot use a previous states name within 10 years of the previous name being inactive. I'm not entirely sure of how it works on the forum though.

I would vote for this. There are some minor issues present that others have articulated however this is a step forward and as such I believe it should pass.

Given there is a potential replacement (Well written). I'll change my vote.

For I do note the. Change in vote, however given simones response I see no reason why I shouldn't support the repeal.

For Completely agree with Simone on this one. Also side note I would for the replacement as well as this repeal

Against Mostly based on national sovereignty and I do not believe this should be handled by the WA. Each member nation should be free to tackle this issue as they see fit. Moreover this places an undue burden on governments that is both impractical and does not take into account each nations own...

Against Clause 2.1 states accorindg to each nations own level of medical science, given that how can several nations join together as they would not all have the same level of medical science. To expanded on that again how would this work say with an university that has a lab that has a higher...

For Magecastle has answered concerns admirably on this thread and as such I see no logical reason to vote against.

Against

For.

Court Justice: < St George Would you like to reopen nominations? < no >

For. I've got to say magecastle damm I'm impressed, you've taken what's been said previously and turned it around perfectly. Top job.

Tentatively for I agree with the principle and it is written fairly well however Clause 8 seems fairly nonsensical to me.

Against

How would this work if say you have an alliance which is binding on you and the third party, then your third party commits an act of war ?. By the terms of this resolution you cannot assist in anyway otherwise you are also guilty. However if you do not assist the third party you would breach the...

Against I find the phrasing of the introduction to be unnecessary.

The clause I have issue with is actually clause 5, which would provide higher standards and welfare in the sense of skills and learning than would be typical. I don't think that would be fair. If it were say disability related then sure I'd support it. I must say I mostly disagree on...

I wasn't sure if GA#436 would still be valid with this resolution in mind. In particular national security concerns. My only issue was those clauses.

Against I have several issues with this. Most apply to undue burden on member states. Incentives such as skill/learning how would that work exactly, would nonaddicts also have access to this for free ?. This legislation would in effect set different rules for addicts and non addicts. Clause 7...

For Given hulldoms comments regarding GA#436 I am changing my vote.

For.

For

Yeah I agree with 9003 on this one.

Nation in the North Pacific: Escotia Discord Username with Tag: Elfnotonashelf#4107 Are you interested in being a forum mentor?: YES Are you interested in being part of the Welcome Wagon?: YES

Could you clarify what you mean by educational, experience and knowledge in clause 1.1 what standard should individuals be held to within that clause ?. On a further point would an individual have to meet all requirements as stipulated in clause 1.1, for example if someone has the experience but...

Still Against. How many times will this come up. The proposal is entirely based on condemning communism without specifics. Terrible resolution.

Against. I think magecastle sums it up better than I could.

Nation in TNP: Escotia WA Nation (if different): Discord Tag: Elfnotonashelf#4107 Resolutions Authored (if any): None Currently however starting to think about an idea for one. Have you read the opening address: Yes WA Area of Focus: Both Any other message/comments: No