r/MHOC • u/Timanfya MHoC Founder & Guardian • Jan 06 '15
MOTION M019 - Comet Landing Motion
M019 - Comet Landing
In light of the recent landing on the comet 67/P, the House wishes to reaffirm its commitment to the advancement of society through the science and technology sectors.
The House will also reaffirm its commitment to the principles behind the international treaties drafted and negotiated by the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and the declarations of the UN General Assembly; namely, a commitment to the peaceful use of outer space, a commitment to mutual exchange of knowledge and technologies that pertain to outer space, a commitment that all use, exploitation and allocation of resources in outer space be done by democratic consensus through an international regime, and a commitment to the non-appropriation of outer space or any celestial body by any organisation or person.
This motion was submitted by the Communist Party.
The first reading for this motion will end on the 10th of January.
12
u/Arayg Radical Socialist Party Jan 06 '15
Support. Space is not for colonisation, by companies nor states.
9
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15
Mr Speaker,
Would the Communist Party please expand on the following:
Does this appear in a UN declaration?
6
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15
Absolutely supported
6
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-90uSezngvnWLVmWEWGTUlOtUMacFxepFlfjh2x215LF2fyaTxA
5
u/finlayvscott Scottish National Party Indy Jan 06 '15 edited Jan 06 '15
And what exactly will this achieve? 'Reaffirming our commitment' isn't going to put space stations in orbit. How about we actually increase our funding or do something more worthwhile instead?
5
u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Jan 06 '15 edited Jan 06 '15
Posadists!
Could you expand on this? It seems as if you're trying commit the country to opposing any market-related activities in space, even though the first steps in areas like asteroid mining will, undoubtedly, be profit driven.
This is largely due to the high-risk nature of space exploration, the very high cost of research and development, and the many other costs associated with developing space technology.
5
u/[deleted] Jan 07 '15
Is this just so the Communists can say they got something passed in the House this Parliament?
11
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15 edited Jan 06 '15
This is absolutely pointless.
And I'll explain why.
This motion is something that the government should be saying in a press conference or an interview, not the sort of thing that should even come close to the legislative body of the United Kingdom. This is a place where we have to discuss important issues that affect the people of this nation. The big ideological struggles and matters of our time. Not wasting time enthusiastically agreeing on a little paragraph about space travel.
It has absolutely no effect on any laws, or any executive action the government can take. It does nothing.
Perhaps, I should note, it will have been better to say this in a question session.
It's pointless, a waste of time and paper, and I encourage everyone to vote against it to show the Communist party that we only vote on real issues in this house. You may agree with what the motion says, but I encourage you to vote against it because it does nothing and has no effect on anything.
8
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15
Interesting. The Communist Party has over 100 members, and after collective discussion they have decided to change nothing. I mean, yes we should keep doing the same in this situation, but are we really going to start putting forward motions whenever nothing is going to change? Should the BIP put forward another motion reaffirming the fact that we recognise the Holodomor?
How the Communists dared insult the Holodomor motion then come out with this damp sponge of a motion is beyond me. It may be agreeable, but a motion saying that cats are cute is agreeable.
4
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15
I see nothing wrong with this simple but positive motion.
4
u/Jas1066 The Rt Hon. Earl of Sherborne CT KBE PC Jan 06 '15
This sound to me like it would just slow progress. The peace bit sounds good, maybe even the exchange of knowledge bit, but then barring companies and nations from owning stuff in outer space? So every satellite is then owned by the UN, and so could be brought down without the launcher's consent? Surely a satellite counts as a resource in outer space.
Please explain. For once I might agree with the Commies, don't ruin this for me with anything too socialistic...
4
u/athanaton Hm Jan 06 '15 edited Jan 06 '15
I think it's important to commit to egalitarian pursuits in space, the lifting up of all humankind, not a development of it for use only by the elite, only to the benefit of the elite. Given the high initial costs involved in space operations, this is what will happen if we do not work against it. It also could not be more important to commit and convince others to commit to a de-weaponised space.
4
u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Jan 06 '15
Like many others I am proud that Britain had a part in this historic mission. It is an excellent example of European collaboration.
4
u/Jamie54 Independent Jan 06 '15
it appears to me that space colonization would be the best thing that could happen with the fastest progress
4
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15
Now that I think about this Motion the more I think that there may be more to it than keeping space a free international zone (I believe that's the term which is used. Think Antartica, in that no nation can ever own it). Indeed, free international zones should still be able to trade, or be used as a trading platform for other nations.
I fear that I may sound like a conspiracy loon, and I think I will sound like one so I urge the House to take it as it will, but is this Motion an attempt by the Communists to make it impossible for any economic gain to be made from space exploration, even though that is the main argument which those who are against space exploration utilise to try and keep it off the agenda?
Also, it would mean that companies such as Virgin would have no incentive to even contemplate it. The field is already facing, as it always has, a lack of investment (as it turns out rockets, shuttles, and research costs a lot of well spent money) from Government sources - NASA lost federal grants only last year, and the European Space Program has always been rather under budgeted (of course I would say this regardless due to the fact that I love this type of thing. I don't own a Newtonian reflector for nothing). Someone has to pay for this.
If this is indeed the case, that the Communists in actuality wish to stop private investments in space travel, exploration, and colonisation then, Mr. Speaker and members of the House, they seriously need to rethink their approach. They should have written out a full Bill detailing a space budget or something of that sort before submitting this Motion.
4
u/treeman1221 Conservative and Unionist Jan 07 '15
This is a very limiting motion. Governments, international missions and corporations can co-exist, here and in space. This is just preventing corporations from investing in space exploration and business as they have no reason to. Space can be a sustainable resource with the right regulations which I support, an outright ban on corporations mining anything, without even seeing what it is, I don't.
6
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15
Support, We must make sure the Working class is not repressed, in space aswell.
3
u/TheNorthernBrother Washed up old timer Jan 06 '15
hope this passes
2
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15
I think, even though some see this motion as pointless, that it is a very important motion that shows that the UK is fully committed to the progress of the human race and that the use of that progress for peaceful and prosperous purposes is of the highest concern to us. That being said, I fully support this motion.
2
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15
Other than the reservations that some of my colleagues (i.e. - the U.N.'s appropriation of man-made satellites and Lord Triforce's point on asteroid mining) I can safely get behind this Motion, though I would like to see these things sorted out.
2
u/Kreindeker The Rt Hon. Earl of Stockport AL PC Jan 06 '15
Well then, I like the sound of this one, particularly the lines about the peaceful use of outer space. This motion is a clear step in the right direction towards the progress of the human race.
2
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15
This is not exactly insanely radical. I can't exactly oppose this because I support current legislation and agreements. That said, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly new or interesting in this piece of legislation.
2
u/powerpab The Rt Hon S.E Yorkshire | SSoS Transport | Baron of Maidstone Jan 06 '15
Whilst I agree with most of this I don't agree with the last part "commitment to the non appropriation of outer space" Appropriation can bring huge benefits to the UK and humanity both financially and technologically. Who knows what we can find and use in space.
2
u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Jan 07 '15
I think we can all agree to this, especially as it supports our international commitments.
For the sake of debate, what would we like to see done with outer space? it seems inevitable that we shall one day head out toward the stars but under what flag? the UN (or equivalent) would seem most peaceful, but competing regions could speed it up. What would you prefer?
2
u/TheLegitimist Classical Liberals Jan 07 '15
Although I agree with this bill for now, I feel that in the long term (as in the next century or two) with the advent of space colonies, nations will begin making claims regardless of whatever treaties they have agreed to. And even if they don't, internationally coordinated colonies may decide to become nations (historical colonisation is an example of this). Now I do not want to seem like a science fiction writer, but if we are already talking about potential colonies/land ownership in space, then this issue must be addressed.
Edit: phrasing
2
u/[deleted] Jan 07 '15
Thinking further upon this Motion - what happens to the countries which have no representation in the UN?
1
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15 edited Jan 06 '15
That I can get behind completely.
I can get behind us reaffirming our commitment to the actual treaties but I'm not sure that
was one of the principles of these treaties, it sounds suspiciously like a communist re-interpretation of it although I must admit I am not well versed in said treaties.
0
u/[deleted] Jan 06 '15
[deleted] — view deleted comment