UN: Repeal "SPCC Regulation Act"

[Jesioneka]

UN Resolution #58: SPCC Regulation Act (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

Acknowledging that Resolution #58, SPCC Regulation Act, was intended as an extension of Resolution #11, Ban Single-Hulled Tankers, which remains in effect,

Regretting that SPCC Regulation Act purported to establish a series of "Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasures," but in fact did no such thing,

Recognising that SPCC Regulation Act in no way:
- extends, adds to, or even realizes any of the provisions of the earlier resolution,
- enacts any form of regulation,
- does anything to prevent, clean or control oil spills,
- or in fact accomplishes anything, of any nature, whatsoever, other than to vaguely waffle on in a trite march of irrelevancies while entirely neglecting to place a single obligation on member nations,

Rejecting the notion that there is any point maintaining a resolution whose entire substance has all the legislative effect of a small child whining "waaah, Mummy! I don't like it! waaah!",

Agreeing with the concept of demonstrating the UN's commitment to genuine and effective international law rather than useless and annoyingly brattish screams of infantile indignation by striking out through repeal such a thoroughly terrible resolution,

And remaining safe in the knowledge that this repeal will in no way allow any irresponsibility or laxity of regulation in the transportation of oil or hazardous chemicals, given the original resolution makes no provisions to such effect:

Hereby repeals SPCC Regulation Act.

[Anime Daisuki]

I'm voting against it. Consider the name of the nation who proposed this is "The Anti-UN Conspiracy of Surly the Repealinator".

3/4 of all repeal motions are put forward by Gatesville people. Its a conspiracy to make the UN irrelevant.

[repaxan]

FOR

[Twobagger]

repaxan said:

FOR

For? Wherefore?

There seems to be a lack of spirited, thought-provoking debate here. Let's rectify this.

I think this resolution defeats itself because of a lack of regard for fact. It claims that the resolution to be repealed does not "even [realize] the provision of the earlier resolution [resolution #11]" when the resolution to be repealed does, in fact, urge nations to keep using double-hulled vessels, which happens to be the "provision of the earlier resolution."

This new resolution claims that the resolution to be repealed "in no way... does anything to prevent, clean, or control oil spills," but as the resolution states, using double-hulled vessels (as it conveniently urges) would, according to the resolution, prevent and control oil spills. Also, I'm sure that many printed copies of the resolution could be used to clean oil spills.

This new resolution claims that the resolution to be repealed "in no way... accomplishes anything, of any nature, whatsoever, other than to vaguely waffle on in a trite march of irrelevancies while entirely neglecting to place a single obligation on member nations," while this new resolution quite conveniently fails to accomplis anything, of any nature, whatsoever, other than to offer up a trite march of irrelevancies while entirely neglecting fact.

The new resolution, then, bases its justification on repealing the resolution in question on two things:
1) Talking points that are at best stretches of the truth and at worst completely untrue, and
2) The suggestion that the resolution in question has been poorly written.

Given the above, I urge all nations to "Reject[...] the notion that there is any point maintaining a resolution [such as this one] whose entire substance has all the legislative effect of a small child whining 'waaah, Mummy! I don't like it! waaah!', " and to "agree[...] with the concept of demonstrating the UN's commitment to genuine and effective international law rather than useless and annoyingly brattish screams of infantile indignation by striking out [hope of] repeal [through] such a thoroughly terrible resolution."

Furthermore, since the only valid reasoning we have to repeal the resolution in question is that said reason is poorly written, I say that it makes no sense to repeal a resolution on the grounds that it is poorly written, through a poorly written resolution.

In short, I ask all of you to vote against this resolution, ironically, for the same reasons that this resolution asks all of you to vote against a previous one.

Your thoughts?

[The Candy Lane]

wow, ur argument's longer then their proposition...

[repaxan]

Well, at least I got what I wanted.

[Jesioneka]

The resolution Repeal "SPCC Regulation Act" was passed 5,904 votes to 2,552.

I voted no, as suggested by our regional vote.