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: Question period (archive, vote no)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
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: November 2122
Description[?]:
In keeping with parliamentary tradition, this forum permits members of the Citizens Assembly to ask questions to ministers of the government. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 17:32:44, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | Why do we need a law proposal for this? |
Date | 17:33:51, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | In addition the citizens assembly has no tradition, and we do not have a parliament to have a parliamentary tradition applied to it. If you want to use parliamentary tradition as an argument, restore the name parliament first. |
Date | 22:19:26, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | OOC: The name changed, the traditions of the legislative body did not. It is a bill for the sake of convenience, and can easily be moved to another format if other parties prefer. Our first question goes to the Prime Minister: does he, or does he not, believe that members of the legislature have the right to ask questions to government ministers? |
Date | 22:33:15, August 25, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | (he may not have understood what you were saying before that last post, I did not...) |
Date | 01:09:29, August 26, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | Dr. Laura Mises, General Julius Fel, and Riina Veila are all available for questions from politicians, press, and citizens. |
Date | 05:18:52, August 26, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | Our question is for David Lloyd George, the CUP's Education Minister. Since you believe that environmental education is better than regulation, and have voted in favour of the Environmental Education Act, what action do you plan to take on the environmental education front? |
Date | 05:02:59, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | Environmental education is indeed a necessary part of our society today and it is the way to prevent our environmental ills - prevention (i.e. education) is always said to be better than cure (i.e. regulation). So with this in mind, the government has proposed to schools that they undertake a very practical approach to environmental education, as opposed to sitting in a class room and learning the mind numbing science behind the facts. By demonstrating the effect of environmental abuse, we hope to have much of an impact on the minds of today's youth than by simply preaching from the pulpit of the classrooms. Of course some of the theory will have to be implemented and tested but we hope to put this theory on an equal (if not lesser) standing than that of practical experience of the problems caused by environmental change. D.L.G |
Date | 05:05:16, August 28, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | "Our first question goes to the Prime Minister: does he, or does he not, believe that members of the legislature have the right to ask questions to government ministers?" In answer to this, I must give a resounding 'yes'. Ministers must be held to account publicly by the legislature and the bets way to ensure this is via the method of questions in the Assembly. To do otherwise would be undemocratic. W.C. |
Date | 17:06:24, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | A question for the minister responsible for the environment: We are informed that there is a corporation that wishes to drill for natural gas in the East Coast Maritime Preservation Area, off our coast and within our territorial waters. Should they make application to the federal government, or to the state of Andalay? In either case, will the federal government permit resource exploration in this designated park area? |
Date | 17:33:33, August 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | (I think the environment falls under science, technology and agriculture...correct me if Im wrong) They need to make their case to the state of Andalay. As this area has been designated to be a park, the company will not be permitted to drill within the MPA. This is a matter that will be handled by the state of Andalay. Riina Veila |
Date | 16:30:41, August 30, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | Supplemental question: is the minister saying that Andalay state is not permitted ot allow the drilling ("the company will not be permitted to drill") or that Andalay may do as it pleases ("they need to make their case to the state of Andalay")? If Golavia objects, may Andalay still drill within a park that lies off both their coasts? |
Date | 16:28:23, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | No company will be permitted to drill within the limits of the designated marine protection area. What they do in territorial waters outside of these designated areas is at the discretion of the local government of the state by which the waters concerned are administered. State borders extend to our national waters limit perpendicular to the coast. Richard Feynman |
Date | 17:23:30, September 02, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | Regardless of onshore drift? |
Date | 00:57:48, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | Regardless of any drift in your position, yes. |
Date | 04:38:39, September 08, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Question period (archive, vote no) |
Message | That's a remarkably witty 'retort' to conjure up in a mere six days. Now, is there any chance of a sensible reply to the question? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||
yes | Total Seats: 33 | |||||
no |
Total Seats: 222 | |||||
abstain |
Total Seats: 23 |
Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
Random quote: “Their cheap talk of the 'greater good' is a thinly concealed excuse for subordinating the people to the institutionalized violence that is the state.” - Margaret Woodhall, former Dranian politician |