We prefer to stay here.

So why prefer one genetic potential over the other?

Why do we prefer this approach? There are five reasons.

We therefore favour the holding of an international conference at the appropriate time.

And we like to draw these tiles as little squares.

We would have preferred a fully negotiated agreement with our Palestinian neighbours.

So we like to see profits, and environmental benefits, when we invest.

Well, we're sort of like the Ralph Naders of bad ideas trying to replace bad ideas with good ideas.

Given the interrelationship of the Treaty provisions, we would favour reports covering implementation of all aspects of the Treaty.

We are in favour of creating a peacebuilding support office within the Secretariat that is both compact and effective.

Why? Because we'd rather take those cells which already know that those are the cell types you want.

On nuclear disarmament, we would have preferred to see a more ambitious mandate that would consider specific measures and new instruments.

While we would have preferred a different mechanism, we believed it was important for the international community to speak with one voice and to act decisively.

With respect to the addition of new permanent members, our strong preference would be for a mechanism which provides for permanent membership to be reviewable .

We are in favour of establishing a mechanism to intensify the monitoring of follow up in the area of development financing so as to ensure the timely delivery of high quality ODA.

Based on that position and out of respect for national judicial sovereignty, we would prefer to see perpetrators of gross violations of human rights stand trial in the Sudanese judicial system.

And he referred me to this lovely quote from the Japanese Essays in Idleness from the 14th century, in which the essayist wrote, In everything, uniformity is undesirable.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite we must face these tensions squarely.

In line with the need for effective decision making, it is our preference to limit the use of the veto in general, and we certainly oppose extension of the veto to new permanent members.

We wish to record our position, however, that we would have much preferred a Council decision on this matter to have been taken with broader agreement.

The government s ability to offer such insurance on a scale sufficient to make it costless is one reason to favor a public scheme over private insurers.

And the US response to the latest Russian missile shipment? Secretary of State John Kerry said I think we ve made it crystal clear we would prefer that Russia was not supplying assistance.

Thus, we would prefer to see an explicit mechanism that would make it possible for other Member States to review the performance of the new permanent members and, with the support of a two thirds majority, replace them if they fail in their responsibilities.

That Position holds that two permanent Security Council seats should be allocated to Africa, with full privileges, including the power of veto, in addition to five non permanent seats. It also calls for strengthening the lead role of the General Assembly.

In our view, a prior intergovernmental agreement on details of the role, functioning and mandate of that committee is required, and we would have preferred to discuss this aspect further during the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.

So, you're saying that in the pamphlet there's a statement that we may come to prefer our digital selves to our real ones our more malleable or manageable digital identities to our real identities and that in fact, much of human life and human experience may move into the digital realm.

Although we would have preferred to resolve the issue before the September summit, as recommended by the Secretary General, it would plainly be wrong to mistake the lack of a decision for a lack of progress.

As in previous years, I would like to reiterate that we would have preferred to see a document including not only a summary of the questions under consideration, but also with some content on the Council's decision making process.

To further delay the process would not only stagnate the approval of other important issues, but would also send the wrong message to the world that we who are Members of the United Nations prefer at this moment to wait rather than to seize the day.

We would have preferred it if the international community had used the opportunity provided by the recently concluded world summit to commit to the full implementation of all the outcomes of the past conferences and summits, in particular the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development and the World Conference against Racism.

That means we have to resist the neurobiological drive, which means that we really prefer people mostly like ourselves, and it means we have to seek out people with different backgrounds, different disciplines, different ways of thinking and different experience, and find ways to engage with them.

In fact, the dubious notion that we should select economic activities based on their presumed technical innovativeness has been carried even further, in support of the argument that we should favor semiconductor chips over potato chips.

We continue to prefer having the Conference on Disarmament as the body responsible for this work, but if it proves incapable of including this subject in a work programme and rapidly starting work on it, we, together with others, will have to look elsewhere.

We would have preferred a resolution text without exceptions, but we were guided by our concern that it would be far more important to have a resolution that took into account certain differing views than to have no resolution at all and to allow violations of humanitarian law to go unpunished.