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: Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations
Details
Submitted by[?]: Macon Nationalist Party
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: February 2408
Description[?]:
| The MNP believes that Hutori does not yet and should never posess the right to make these decisions itself. We must surrender control of foreign affairs to the Union government. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change
The government's policy regarding foreign embassies.
Old value:: Foreign countries may establish an embassy after obtaining approval from the Foreign Office.
Current: Foreign countries may establish an embassy after obtaining approval from the Foreign Office.
Proposed: The government does not allow foreign embassies.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning immigration.
Old value:: Quotas are based on individual applicant's qualifications.
Current: Quotas are based on individual applicant's qualifications.
Proposed: No foreigners are permitted to reside permanently in this nation.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning granting nationality (national of this state without implication of having citizenship rights).
Old value:: Anyone receives nationality but immigrants must pass a test to gain nationality.
Current: Anyone receives nationality but immigrants must pass a test to gain nationality.
Proposed: Only those born to nationals become nationals.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The national refugee policy.
Old value:: Only refugees that are victims of extreme circumstances are welcome; they are given integration-aid.
Current: Only refugees that are victims of extreme circumstances are welcome; they are given integration-aid.
Proposed: No refugees are allowed to enter the country.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:40:00, May 21, 2007 CET | From | Macon Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations |
| Message | "We're certain the Union government will adopt much more liberal policies themselves, but the Hutori regional government must not usurp their control. It must be a national decision on issues like refugees and granting nationality, and it must be a congressional decision on which embassies are allowed to establish themselves here." -Cecilia Roberts MNP, Chair |
| Date | 17:15:20, May 21, 2007 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations |
| Message | Hutori is no longer a part of the Union which you speak of. We lawfully seceded from the Union of Macon. If you wish for Maconian law to take precedent over Hutorian law, then you will first need to propose signing the Constitution of Macon once more, and have 2/3 of Parliament sign it. Until then, Macon can claim no right of sovereignty over this realm. |
| Date | 17:40:29, May 21, 2007 CET | From | Christian Democratic Alternative | To | Debating the Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations |
| Message | The MNP is a traitor! |
| Date | 18:08:24, May 21, 2007 CET | From | Conservative Union Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations |
| Message | True, you just have to try and revive a long dead project which nobody in Hutori wants. You're just selfish and it disgusts me. |
| Date | 18:14:08, May 21, 2007 CET | From | Sensible Parity | To | Debating the Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations |
| Message | The parties here seem desperately quick to call each other traitors. :( Breathe in, vote your conscience, breathe out. A person can disagree with you without being disloyal. Meditate on this. |
| Date | 18:36:28, May 21, 2007 CET | From | United Forces of Decay | To | Debating the Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations |
| Message | This is quite the opposite of what we want. |
| Date | 18:50:10, May 21, 2007 CET | From | Macon Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations |
| Message | "The MNP are Macon loyalists, committed to offering Hutori's PEOPLE a choice on the Union question. Although the project may be despised by rebellious political parties, they hardly speak directly for the people all the time. The people have been given no alternative on the Union question until now. Please don't take such a hard stance against it either. There is much to be reformed from within. Once a new constitution is complete, you may like what you see. Also, Hutori's withdrawal from the First Constitution does not excuse it from the oversight of the Congress. The First Constitution was too vague, and the Union is currently governed by commonly accepted precedents, not constitutional documents. There is a continuing argument (on the forums) about the legality of Hutori's withdrawal. The secessionist side of the argument is losing badly there, RIR, perhaps you could help them out. Right now they're failing quite absolutely to make an intellectual argument for the legality of the secession. Most of the international community is now on the unionist side." -Roberts |
| Date | 18:53:28, May 21, 2007 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations |
| Message | The fact remains that we were assured sovereignty when we entered the union. The Commander in Chief attempted to take us into a war which he had no right to do. We were losing our voice, and things were happening against the treaty. Our secession was entirely justified. |
| Date | 18:54:25, May 21, 2007 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations |
| Message | (And we also get sick of this talk of traitors. The CUP is too quick to try and re-write history. It was the CUP who wished to stay in the Union simply because they held a position there) |
| Date | 21:09:46, May 21, 2007 CET | From | Conservative Union Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations |
| Message | No because we saw the potential, I can assure you that our confidence in the union went when war was declared on us. And yes we now admit Uvas' actions were maybe a little rash. But the fact remains that our main enemy now in the MNP and we must do everything to stop them getting into power and ratifying a new union. We must unite and stand strong, not devide and fall. |
| Date | 21:20:35, May 21, 2007 CET | From | Macon Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Constitutional Question on Foreign Relations |
| Message | "What sillieness. Stop being a pervader of fear, CUP. The CiC was a Hutorian, and most of the delegation from Telamon and Davostan opposed that war, RIR. You're rewriting history. I've already referred you to outside discussions (the forum) where a very comprehensive discussion is occuring on the Union and Hutori's "seccession". Your side has lost badly on almost every point, and they've been reduced to senseless platitudes." -Roberts |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 248 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Parties have the ability to endorse another party's candidate for the Head of State election (if there is one). This adds a strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Bill Clinton |