Repeal: WA Environmental Council

I just posted the draft for my Repeal of GAR #42 [WA Environmental Council] in the General Assembly forums this morning. Here is a 'copy' of GAR #42:

Here is the 'current' draft of the Repeal. As always, I welcome your suggestions.

A link to the debate in the GA Forums can be found Here.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts/suggestions.

Full support for this. I probably would not support a replacement though.

Well, thankfully for you I have no intentions of actually drafting a replacement. I would rather the WAEC just be completely repealed and disbanded, because at present their effect is minimal, at best; all the WAEC does now is waste WA funds, and plead to national governments to listen to them.

I am sure that if WAEC is repealed, then someone will draft a replacement.

We may need to draft a replacement that is more of a blocker, in nature, than anything else.

Establish something of merit, and generally instruct nations to work towards some environmental protection, but leave the overall mission up to individual member nations.

I have 2 proposals in progress right now, but I'd be happy to work with someone on a blocker replacement, if there's any other interest.

Otherwise, I think your repeal would be better served by further elaborating on the proposal's shortcoming, rather than just relegating the points to a single line within a list.

I cut out the funding argument. Not that it's not relevant, but I think your other arguments are stronger. Certainly, feel free to change wording (or disregard this completely) as you prefer. I also changed the tenses on the verbs because I like them this way when I'm drafting a proposal. To each their own, of course.

I would definitely be interested in working on something, provided you aren't too busy with prior engagements.

I cut out the funding argument. Not that it's not relevant, but I think your other arguments are stronger. Certainly, feel free to change wording (or disregard this completely) as you prefer. I also changed the tenses on the verbs because I like them this way when I'm drafting a proposal. To each their own, of course.

I went with a different format for this draft, one that has been used in previous repeals; however, I am open to changing the clauses from bullet-style points. I can see how rhetorically it may produce a more compelling argument for a repeal. After reading your version again, I am going to re-draft the repeal, using some of your suggestions; we'll work from there I suppose.

In regard to the funding argument, it seems the consensus thus far has been to remove that clause entirely. Any more thoughts on that from others?

Thanks for the input, Mousey.

Saludos,
Cool Egg

Agreed. I've seen both ways of formatting, and - for me - the decision as to which is best depends on the topic and the arguments in question. If you have fairly straightforward arguments/complaints, the bullet list works. For a more complicated (relatively) argument, that could be met with, "So what?" arguments from the populace, I think that spelling out why stuff is bad is better.

Agreed. I've seen both ways of formatting, and - for me - the decision as to which is best depends on the topic and the arguments in question. If you have fairly straightforward arguments/complaints, the bullet list works. For a more complicated (relatively) argument, that could be met with, "So what?" arguments from the populace, I think that spelling out why stuff is bad is better.

I think in this case you are definitely right, Mousey. I am working on another draft at the moment, it should be 'ready' in a little while.

Updated draft. I think changing the verb tense made the actual reading of the repeal much smoother, thanks for that Mousey. I used mainly your sentence structures, slightly adapted in some cases; it's pretty much exactly as you proposed, though.

Furthermore, do you accept co-authorship Mousey? You essentially re-wrote/condensed the initial concepts. I appreciate it.

Looks good on first read - I'll take another look-see in a few days, presuming you're not planning to submit this baby super-soon.

And, absolutely, I accept the co-authorship offer! Always happy to help forward Nat Sov-oriented repeals.

Looks good on first read - I'll take another look-see in a few days, presuming you're not planning to submit this baby super-soon.

And, absolutely, I accept the co-authorship offer! Always happy to help forward Nat Sov-oriented repeals.

I have no immediate plan to submit, as I think we should work on a blocker replacement first. Of course, we have plenty of time for all that.

Yeah, that's probably a good idea. We'd hate to be inundated with "Save the trees!" / "Save the seas!" / "Save the worlds!" proposals after the repeal passes ....

New thread for that, though, I'd think. Feel free to start one, whenever you'd like. (Even if it's just brainstorming, that's a good start. No need to have a whole draft to start.)

Do you think we should work off the current WAEC resolution, taking care to implement a more 'domestic' approach to environmental councils?

If not, we can just start fresh.

I would think that starting with an existing resolution - not authored by either of us - is possibly a plagiarism issue. Of course, it depends on how much it's changed.

I would think that starting with an existing resolution - not authored by either of us - is possibly a plagiarism issue. Of course, it depends on how much it's changed.

I was pretty much just thinking in terms of working off the concepts. Not specific clauses or ideas, or anything like that.

Support!!!