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: Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic National Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2372
Description[?]:
| Article 1: Likatonia is formed by the the 5 Prefecture's of: Hukatai Gokitan Sorbanika Lukaron Meria These perfectures are completely under the control of the democratic Convocation and cannot receive indepence without a constitutional ammendment Article 2: The Government of Liatonia lays claim to the perfectures of: Hukatai Gokitan Sorbanika Lukaron Meria Article 3: The Government of Likatonia repects the sovereignty of our neighbours. Article 4: The Government of Likatonia lays no claim whatsoever to any lands in Keymon, Valruzia, Telamon, Lodamun and will not engage in aggresive military actions against these nations for expansionist purposes. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:25:26, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | This proposal will allow Likatonia to have good relations with its neighbours and the international community. It is also a sign of unity, to ensure certain parts of Likatonia are not broke away and this country does not split up. |
| Date | 23:28:35, March 09, 2007 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | The articles in this Bill are currently redundant. All four are current Convocation policy. |
| Date | 23:30:30, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | Not officially convocation policy. We wish for them to be installed officially in writing to ensure the unity of this country. We understand that the LITP might have a problem with articles 1 and 2 and thus have a vested interested in preventing this bill from being passed. |
| Date | 23:49:49, March 09, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | We will vote in favor. |
| Date | 23:53:46, March 09, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | Regardless of anything else, there is no 'Government of Likatonia'...the nation in which we reside is called the Axis Mundi Likatonian Res Publica. It should be referred to as such, especially in legislative measures. |
| Date | 00:56:59, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | The name of the country is Likatonia. The name can change to "Supernatural Likatonia" or "Axis Axis Axis Mundi Likatonia Mundi Mundi Axis" and this bill will still be in force if it is passed. |
| Date | 01:47:38, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | Always eager to broker compromise with our political opponents, Axis Mundi Sturm und Drang Partei now intends to support the name recommended by the ConLibs. It's not one we would have picked, but if the ConLibs insist, we are willing to support their 'Axis Axis Axis Mundi Likatonia Mundi Mundi Axis' proposal. |
| Date | 02:50:38, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | We object on a number of grounds. Not least of which, is the fact that we consider this proposal 'unfinished'... insufficiently debated to be called a 'resolution', we do not believ there was any attempt to represent the will of the Convocation - just to push the ConLib agenda under the masquerade of a Convocation resolution - and we refuse to sanction such underhanded techniques. |
| Date | 11:36:40, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | Not surprising that the authoritarians vote against this bill. The AMR are showing their true colours and the LRM clearly haven't changed their number one principal since the LFFR. |
| Date | 12:43:52, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | As this requests a constitutional amendment, AMELIP legal advisors believe that this Resolution will only be binding with a 2/3 majority. As the all encompassing AM organisation have carefully orchestrated resistance to prevent this, the Resolution may pass, but will be ignored by us evil empiring building minxes. |
| Date | 12:59:34, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | We are all well aware that this bill requires a 2/3 majority. Thanks to the Eastern Likaton Independence Party for their honesty in that last response. The first step is to admit it. |
| Date | 14:32:22, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | Again, we have to pick at a couple of the weak points in the ConLib rhetoric: 1) The AMR were dissolved after an internal coup. The fact that the ConLibs have managed to not notice this suggests they do not pay attention to ANYTHING in the public domain. 2) We stated our main reason for opposition. It is extremely dishonest of the ConLibs to paper over that, and pretend that it is something to do with us being 'authoritarian'. 3) Do the ConLibs not appreciate the irony of creating a bill that carefully trims potential future democratic exercise of power... and then accusing OTHER parties of being 'authoritarian'? |
| Date | 14:54:04, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | "The fact that the ConLibs have managed to not notice this suggests they do not pay attention to ANYTHING in the public domain." Your change of party name has been noted. But even that cannot cover up the corruption that has existed in your party, publically admitted my members of your party. We will call you by your real party name to emphasise this point to the people. |
| Date | 15:00:30, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | The party name did not change. The party did. The former heads of the party were ousted - and have no connection to the current top level administration. We reject the baseless claims of 'corruption'. We also reject this ConLib idea that they are calling us 'by our real name'... since they clearly are not doing so. (OOC: Seriously, what you are doing is not good roleplaying, and isn't legitimate - the 'party' has been stated as changed, THAT is the roleplay 'truth' - if you don't accept that as being valid, you might want to go check the forums to see what is acceptable roleplay). |
| Date | 15:12:24, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | OOC: I stand by what I said. |
| Date | 15:22:13, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | (OOC: What do you mean you 'stand by' what you said? If you've paid any attention to the roleplay rules, you'll see that what you are doing is not legitimate. You don't get to 'stand by' it. The AMR is dissolved. It has been replaced by the Sturm und Drang Partei. Their only connection is the OOC connection that I have played both of them). |
| Date | 19:04:28, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | OOC: You have the exact same tone and have the exact same bias agains thte ConLibs that you had when you called yourself the AMR. Unless you have a fresh stance on your role play and your attitude against this party, I am not going to assume that you are a completely different party headed by completely difference people. |
| Date | 19:30:29, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | OOC: I have the same 'bias' against the ConLibs, because the ConLibs continue to harass all AM parties. The AMR opposed the discrimination by the ConLibs, and the Sturm und Drang Partei opposes discrimination by the ConLibs. That's not because THEY are 'the same party'.. .it's because you are. |
| Date | 19:31:44, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | The AMSDP spout out the exact same rhetoric that the AMR always did. |
| Date | 19:44:13, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | OOC: That's because the person that writes their material is the same person. The fact remains, they are different parties. Thus, the claim that they were otherwise, is untrue. Plus, as I've pointed out - if the AMR called the ConLibs discriminatory tyrants, and the AM SuDP call the ConLibs discriminatory tyrants... maybe it's because the ConLibs are discriminatory tyrants? |
| Date | 20:28:50, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | "discriminatory tyrants" yours is the party proposing coalition that excludes parties who don't conform to Axis Mundi. We never proposed any cabinets which exluded your party. |
| Date | 23:03:29, March 10, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Consitution Ammendment (Greater Likatonia dismissal) |
| Message | And, in that bill, we explained WHY we are opting to now exclude. We also pointed out that other Axis Mundi parties might be more willing to cooperate with your tyrannical wannabe regime. No one said other parties had to 'conform' to some regime. The SSP and the CivLibs have been far less active in opposing the Axis Mundi, so the AM SuDP feels there MIGHT be more room to dialogue with those parties. Nothing about conforming - just not attacking. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 88 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 111 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "What are you trying to protect heterosexual marriages from? There isn't a limited amount of love in Iowa. It isn't a non-renewable resource. If Amy and Barbara or Mike and Steve love each other, it doesn't mean that John and Mary can't." - Ed Fallon |