We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Forest Management Act 2362
Details
Submitted by[?]: Christian Democratic Alternative
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2363
Description[?]:
| In the opinion of the Christian Democratic Alternative local foresters know the state of forests best. Therefore we believe that local forestries should be allowed |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: All forestry is performed by private companies.
Current: There is a national agency which exists side-by-side with commercial forestry companies.
Proposed: Local governments may set up forestry agencies. Where they do not, forestry is on a commercial basis.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning forest protection.
Old value:: The government has no policy on forest protection.
Current: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Proposed: Forest protection is left to local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:23:29, February 19, 2007 CET | From | Christian Democratic Alternative | To | Debating the Forest Management Act 2362 |
| Message | I have been rash on my two previous proposals, so I am leaving this one open for debate. Please state your opinions. |
| Date | 08:44:08, February 20, 2007 CET | From | "Le Chaim" - Aesthetic Party | To | Debating the Forest Management Act 2362 |
| Message | Not to local governments. |
| Date | 09:27:08, February 20, 2007 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Forest Management Act 2362 |
| Message | Indeed. The Right is Right Party is vehemently against devolution. [OOC: I'm glad to see this being debated! I miss the debates on Particracy. But, even if it looks as though the majority of parties aren't going to like it, you must still have it voted on, as it alters your rating with 'the public' and lets them know what you stand for. Simply proposing a bill does not do that. Just a bit of help;) WB] |
| Date | 10:27:45, February 20, 2007 CET | From | Christian Democratic Alternative | To | Debating the Forest Management Act 2362 |
| Message | I don't care about losing at the moment. Indeed, most of the bills I've proposed are for profiling reasons. I know the New Democratic Party hasn't responded yet, but I'm going to put it to a vote. And if you guys don't mind I'm going to vote "yes". |
| Date | 00:22:16, February 21, 2007 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Forest Management Act 2362 |
| Message | Do you think Jack Layton would wish a tree felled? :D I oppose logging and I oppose devolution. Since logging exists in both proposals, I shall choose the lesser of two weevils. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 250 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com and http://www.behindthename.com/random are great resources for coming up with character names from unfamiliar cultures. |
| Random quote: "An extremely credible source has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud." - Donald Trump |