Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: May 5461
Next month in: 02:25:55
Server time: 09:34:04, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): aai14 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497

Details

Submitted by[?]: Parti Communiste de Rildanor

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: August 2500

Description[?]:

"National Security Act 2497"

An Act to Secure National Interests in Defense and Market Stability.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date01:39:17, December 08, 2007 CET
FromParti Monarchiste Catholique
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
MessageWe cannot support article 2.

Date02:51:41, December 08, 2007 CET
From Front Canrillaise
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
MessageSubsidize every private enterprise that faces bankruptcy? We'd like to keep it the way it is. And we hardly think the defence industry needs any subsidies as our biggest spending is already on the military. If they're not profiting from that then that says something about their lack of innovativeness and competitiveness.

Date05:17:55, December 08, 2007 CET
FromOption Citoyenne
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
MessageWe will support this.

Date08:48:14, December 08, 2007 CET
FromUnion Démocrate Libertarien
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
MessageNO.

Date19:46:18, December 08, 2007 CET
FromParti Communiste de Rildanor
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
Message"How silly that parties would oppose a perfectly acceptable act that would secure our nation. It is disgraceful to behold. We ask all parties, in the interest of the Kingdom, to rethink. Roi Charles has given me his assurance that this is an act, in the interest of the nation, that he is determined to see passed."

-Éléonore Beyincé
PSC Senateur
Premier, Rildanor

Date20:50:26, December 08, 2007 CET
FromFront Nationaliste Royaliste
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
Message"We can possibly accept Article 1, but we view the present status that Article 2 seeks to reform as already too socialistic.

OOC:

Can we please refrain from RP'ing the King's political views? I think its wise for him to remain relatively silent politically.

Date23:37:15, December 08, 2007 CET
From Front Canrillaise
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
MessageOOC: We agree with the FNR. No single party should be able to RP what the king thinks for its own benefit.

Date02:50:58, December 09, 2007 CET
FromPartie Démocratique Libéral
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
MessageI was under the impression that His Majesty had promised to refrain from 'petty politics' as a condition of his ascention to a permanent and potentially dictatorial position? I mean, I never really expected him and his lackeys in the PA to uphold that claim, but do they wish to drop the act so quickly? But I suppose that is what a 'King' is there for, after all.

Regardless, we feel that this bill is undue corporate welfare and will oppose it.

-Adrien Felice
Chef de plancher pour le Parti Démocratique Libéral
Sénateur de la Leria (Meriath)

Date16:49:35, December 09, 2007 CET
FromParti Communiste de Rildanor
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
MessageHow is article 2 too socialistic? As it is, bankrupt industries deemed to be important to the nation are NATIONALIZED. This act would subsidize them but keep them in private hands.

((OOC: The PSC intends to continue claiming the King for itself as long as it has a plurality, whether or not he actually says any of those things.))

Date17:04:17, December 10, 2007 CET
FromOption Citoyenne
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
Messageooc: RP'ing the King needs to be shared among the pro-monarchist parties, seriously.

Date19:41:29, December 12, 2007 CET
From Front Canrillaise
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
MessageOOC: I don't even think any monarchist party has that right.

Date21:49:37, December 12, 2007 CET
FromParti Radical et Radical-Socialiste
ToDebating the Acte De Sécurité Nationale 2497
MessageOOC: in almost all monarchies the HOS is just an echo for the prime minister, and no matter what the monarch actually thinks they will say whatever the pm tells them... i.e. speech from the throne. So technically while the king cannot have any opinions of his own, the government can tell the king what to say. Lutte suggested having a house of lords so if we went with that then we could do a speech from the trone, but everyone would know it would not be the king talking or saying what he thinks, it would be him reading a letter fromt he pm to parliament.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 76

no
      

Total Seats: 184

abstain
 

Total Seats: 43


Random fact: Make sure your nation casts its nominations in Particracy's very own Security Council elections! For more information, see http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=8453

Random quote: "Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 93