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: Federalisation Intiative
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Trade Unionist Party
Status[?]: passed
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: May 2446
Description[?]:
| We believe that government is most effective when it is closer to the people. As such, we propose these measures to allow voters to decide locally on the issues that concern them, instead of nationwide laws which may severely limit the growth and prosperity of regions. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning farm size.
Old value:: Farm size is not regulated.
Current: Farms that grow too large are broken up and the land redistributed.
Proposed: Farm size regulations are determined by local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: The government does not take any position on nuclear power.
Current: Nuclear power plants are not permitted.
Proposed: The decision is left up to local governments.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The funding of sports clubs.
Old value:: The government does not fund sports clubs; only private ones are allowed.
Current: The government does not fund sports clubs; only private ones are allowed.
Proposed: Local governments decide the funding policy of sports clubs.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Regulation of the quality of drinking water.
Old value:: The government sets a range of standards dependant on water usage. (grey water regulation, etc.)
Current: The government sets a single standard to ensure all tap water is drinkable.
Proposed: Local government is responsible for drinking water quality regulation.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:27:36, August 23, 2007 CET | From |  Liberty Party | To | Debating the Federalisation Intiative |
| Message | If we're going to give government the power to impose these regulations, I'd rather give it to the one, stable central government. On another note, dam, the federalist party's back. |
| Date | 11:36:39, August 23, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Trade Unionist Party | To | Debating the Federalisation Intiative |
| Message | It makes sense to allow these measures to be placed with the people that they affect, as opposed to uncaring politicians 100's of miles away OOC: Just when you thought we were gone we come back like the villain in bad horror movie |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 197 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 79 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 125 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "Those looking for ideology in the White House should consider this: for the men who rule our world, rules are for other people." - Naomi Klein |