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: Bill of Peerage 2511
Details
Submitted by[?]: Coalition for National Unity [CNU]
Status[?]: passed
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: August 2515
Description[?]:
| This Bill is an agreement by the United Parties of The Federal Republic of Solentia to establish and uphold a distinct system of peerage for the Republic. Currently, the CMP notes that there is no such system in our nation thus we wish, in order to congratulate and thank those who have a great service to their nation that we allow members of the Republic to be granted titles of state as a symbolic welcome of their services and show of Solentian appreciation. The Titles. The Titles agreed upon by we, the United Parties, shall be as follows: * Sir/Dame - Known as a Knighthood * Lord/Lady - Known as a Peerage 5th Class * Baron/Baroness- Known as a Peerage 4th Class * Viscount/Viscountess - Known as a Peerage 3rd Class * Earl/Countess - Known as a Peerage 2nd Class * Marquess/marchioness - Known as a Peerage 1st Class *Duke/Duchessm - Known as a Peerage Supremum Senate: The Senate shall be asked to vote upon members of the Solentian people who are thought to be of worthy note to receive Peerage. Any Party can place a candidate forward for consideration. A straight 51% Majority is required for Peerage to be granted. Ecclesiastical Peerages are permitted and encouraged. Former Presidents shall be placed forth for Peerage automatically. The Senate shall be asked to discuss what rank of Peerage they feel is suitable on an individual basis. We propose that all former Heads of State (Be that Supreme President or Supreme Archbishop) be granted the same title of a slightly higher rank in this discussion. We thank you for your time. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:02:08, January 05, 2008 CET | From | Solentian People Party | To | Debating the Bill of Peerage 2511 |
| Message | I quite agree with these proposals set forward due to the fact we haven't seen any regulations in place regarding this issue prior to you coming forward with these rules and regulations. I think they seem quite sensible, rather than just the head of state saying yes or no. Sir. Timothy Cooper, Supreme President |
| Date | 20:17:16, January 05, 2008 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Bill of Peerage 2511 |
| Message | A wise move, and one that reflects on your humility in your role as President Mr.Cooper. |
| Date | 00:15:08, January 06, 2008 CET | From | Meritocratic Alliance | To | Debating the Bill of Peerage 2511 |
| Message | Perhaps |
| Date | 03:03:18, January 06, 2008 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Bill of Peerage 2511 |
| Message | While we do not feel comfortable bestowing titles of supremacy to select individuals, we feel even more uncomfortable with the title proposed. They reflect a monarchist society or a rule by the elitist rich. The only way we would throw our support behind this is if the titles reflected the Federal Republic we live in. FIP Majority Leader Andrew Cuomo |
| Date | 11:47:56, January 06, 2008 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Bill of Peerage 2511 |
| Message | Very well. The titles are of course, simply taked from other nations who have such a system, We would agree to a more personalised-system. What would the FIP suggest? |
| Date | 21:39:52, January 06, 2008 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Bill of Peerage 2511 |
| Message | Adequate time will be needed for us to produce a series of titles which may compare to the titles currently presented. However, we also have another problem with the proposal. We will not settle with a 51% majority, it is far too slim. There needs to be at least a 67% majority (2/3 approval). Such a small majority as 51% is unreasonable as the individual is subject to the coalition in power. For all we know, a person who may be considered a terrorist to one group might be a hero to another. Should a 2/3 approval be required, it would force the Senate to only consider citizens truly worthy of the title and would prevent individuals seen by one group as detrimental from being granted a special title. By ensuring a general majority from the Senate, we can grant titles to citizens knowing groups from many ideologies have come to a common consensus. FIP Senate Speaker Thiris Landson Jr. |
| Date | 21:44:09, January 06, 2008 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Bill of Peerage 2511 |
| Message | 67% is acceptable. |
| Date | 21:49:08, January 06, 2008 CET | From | Federal Independent Party | To | Debating the Bill of Peerage 2511 |
| Message | We appreciate the CMP's willingness to work with us on this issue. FIP Senate Warden Arkady Ouromov |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 206 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 61 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 158 |
| Random fact: It is not allowed to call more than 5 elections in 5 game years in a nation. The default sanction for a player persisting in the early election tactic will be a seat reset. |
| Random quote: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" - Thomas Jefferson |