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: Laloquan Convention Treaty Withdrawal
Details
Submitted by[?]: Grand Order of Organized Native Sodality
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes the withdrawal from a treaty. It will require half of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 2443
Description[?]:
| A treaty is, by definition, an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law; namely, states and international organizations. Now, even if we agree with the outlined points of the Laloquon Convention, we do not need to be in a treaty simply to keep ourselves loyal to those points. Especially if we are the only ratified nation of said treaty. We are just agreeing with ourselves and it is pointless, presumptuous, and embarrassing. |
Proposals
Article 1
Withdraw from the The First Laloquon Convention.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:01:10, August 16, 2007 CET | From |  Partie Patriotique de Kanjor | To | Debating the Laloquan Convention Treaty Withdrawal |
| Message | It is a protection of POW treaty which is actually better than the other in that it gives better protection to non-official combatants. |
| Date | 11:02:15, August 16, 2007 CET | From | Partie Patriotique de Kanjor | To | Debating the Laloquan Convention Treaty Withdrawal |
| Message | and whats the rush, you could at least leave it up for debate for a few months. |
| Date | 11:19:33, August 16, 2007 CET | From | Grand Order of Organized Native Sodality | To | Debating the Laloquan Convention Treaty Withdrawal |
| Message | We view it as needlessly international. Its not in agreement with anyone, so if we have the law in our books, we shouldn't need to have a treaty for it, too. |
| Date | 11:49:49, August 16, 2007 CET | From | Partie Patriotique de Kanjor | To | Debating the Laloquan Convention Treaty Withdrawal |
| Message | Membership of treaties fluctuates. We certainly intend to promote this treaty amongst other nations. |
| Date | 12:04:58, August 16, 2007 CET | From | Grand Order of Organized Native Sodality | To | Debating the Laloquan Convention Treaty Withdrawal |
| Message | Well, you've only had three hundred years... |
| Date | 12:32:06, August 16, 2007 CET | From | Partie Patriotique de Kanjor | To | Debating the Laloquan Convention Treaty Withdrawal |
| Message | The PPK hasn't been around for 300 years (yet). |
| Date | 13:37:08, August 16, 2007 CET | From | Grand Order of Organized Native Sodality | To | Debating the Laloquan Convention Treaty Withdrawal |
| Message | So can you tell us why we need this treaty? As opposed to, say, just having the same laws without the internationalism? |
| Date | 15:46:55, August 16, 2007 CET | From | Partie Patriotique de Kanjor | To | Debating the Laloquan Convention Treaty Withdrawal |
| Message | See the first comment we made in this debate. We hope that other nations may follow our example and ratify this treaty. |
| Date | 22:03:27, August 16, 2007 CET | From | Kanjoran Centrist Party | To | Debating the Laloquan Convention Treaty Withdrawal |
| Message | We would prefer further discussion so for now we say no. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 45 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 292 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 38 |
| Random fact: If you are likely to be logging in to Particracy with the same IP address as another player with an active account, please inform Moderation on the forum. Otherwise your account could be inactivated on suspicion of multi-accounting. |
| Random quote: "Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered." - Aristotle |