Peace and Prosperity Act of 2014 (Voting on Amendment)

[Lumine]

I'm surprised that nobody has raised any qualms about Section 2 yet; attempting to 'democratise' the United Nations is a fools errand, and one that will do great damage to our ability to advance a strong foreign policy that is in Atlasia's interests.

On first thought I would be inclined to agree, Cassius, but the truth is that our veto power is not that useful when China and Russia use theirs, thus forcing an endless stalemate in the Security Council that actually harms the UN and our own interest. Attempting a reform of the UN has its risks, but given the composition of earlier Security Councils and the General Assembly itself I believe we could be able to mobilize a majority of nations in most cases (at least with more support than Russia), thus actually getting more things done. And since Palestine and Israel are as of now following the peace deal to a good extent, that is one less issue to worry about.

[Dr. Cynic]

I tend to agree. This bill isn't disarming us at this point and is pressing on a more democratic and open UN. I fail to see exactly how such a restructure could be negative.

[TNF]

Would anyone like to add anything else to this, or are we ready to have a final vote on it?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Is there any mechanism or some kind of indicator that the goal of the UN democratisation has been achieved?

[Cranberry]

I guess the SoEA would then have to advocate for it, and maybe sometime then announce it? Idk.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I guess the SoEA would then have to advocate for it, and maybe sometime then announce it? Idk.

You see, this is what I have a problem with. This is very aspirational, and I have big issues with putting something so fluffy into something as important and otherwise prescriptive as this Bill.

Democratisation of the UN is a good idea in theory, but this is a strategy that the Senate needs to work with current and future Presidents over a long period of time. And also something that needs to be done in concert with other permanent members - because a well-meaning self-sacrifice on our part will mean sod-all if the other permanent members just sit there and say "you want to give it up? Go right ahead".

The inclusion of this element strikes me as something included by people who have a lovely idea of how the UN should work, but will little experience of how it actually works.

I'd also like to know the impacts of section 5 of this Bill.

[bore]

This is what Nix said about that earlier on polnut:

The Department of International Affairs does not support the current text of this Senator TNF's Peace and Prosperity Act. However, we see this as an opportunity to revisit our national defense priorities and discuss what Atlasia should be doing to promote international peace. Here are a few recommendations.

1. Repeal the Second Military Division Appropriation Act. Passed at the height of the Iraq War, this bill created an additional army division at a time when Atlasia was occupying multiple countries. Now that we have largely withdrawn from these conflicts, this division is no longer necessary. (This bill also contains a provision increasing pay for active duty personnel, but that past increase isn't necessarily something that we need to retain in our law books. Rest assured, the Department of Defense will not reduce pay for soldiers, sailors, or airmen under my watch.)

2. Repeal and replace the Nuclear Restriction Act. This act contains confusing language that should be simplified and clarified. Since its intent is consistent with what TNF means to accomplish here, I recommend revisiting its provisions and including those revisions in this bill.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Thank you Senator - appreciated

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The amendment has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Merging the army and marines is not plausible given they serve different roles.

[TNF]

Except that, in 2014, they really don't, given that the USMC has seen combat in Iraq, and given that the USMC is supposed to serve as naval infantry. Are you proposing that as an amendment or not?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Except that, in 2014, they really don't, given that the USMC has seen combat in Iraq, and given that the USMC is supposed to serve as naval infantry. Are you proposing that as an amendment or not?

Removing section 4 is my proposal.

The amendment has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

The amendment is unfriendly. A vote is now open on the proposed amendment. Senators, please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.

[TNF]

NAY

[Lumine]

Aye.

[Cassius]

The bill is still bad, but I guess this it the best I'm gonna get...

Aye

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Aye

[Dr. Cynic]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

On this specific amendment, NAY

[Deus Naturae]

Nay.

Is this vote on Bore's or JCL's amendment? I oppose both but would just like clarification.

[TNF]

Nay.

Is this vote on Bore's or JCL's amendment? I oppose both but would just like clarification.

This is a vote on JCL's proposed amendment. I apologize for the confusion, Senator Deus.

[Cranberry]

Abstain for the amendment

As I said before, I do not know the first thing about the stuff dealed in clause 4, so I better be silent

[bore]

Abstain

[TNF]

With two Senators abstaining, the amendment in question has failed to reach a majority and is thus rejected.

Aye(s): Senator JCL, Senator Cassius, Senator Lumine, Senator North Carolina Yankee
Nay(s): President Pro Tempore TNF, Senator Cynic, Senator Polnut, Senator Deus
Abstaining: Senator Cranberry, Senator bore

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators have 24 hours to object.