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: Ecology changes
Details
Submitted by[?]: General Confederation of Labour
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: January 2523
Description[?]:
| Some more changes |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the ownership of domestic animals as pets.
Old value:: People must register domestic animals with the national government.
Current: People must register domestic animals with the local government.
Proposed: People must register domestic animals with the local government.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Forest management.
Old value:: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Current: There is a national agency which owns and manages all forest land.
Proposed: Local governments are required to operate forestry agencies, which own and manage all forest land.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government devolves park policy to local governments.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Waste disposal responsibility.
Old value:: The government is responsible for waste disposal.
Current: The government is responsible for waste disposal.
Proposed: It is the responsibility of local governments to decide on waste disposal regulation.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:19:42, January 26, 2008 CET | From | Democratic Workers' Party and CTUL List | To | Debating the Ecology changes |
| Message | One step forward, two steps back. Article 1 would be logical and pragmatic. All the other proposals merely open the doors to a whole lot of potential problems. Why would we want Sorbanika to be different from Meria in that Merians have their waste disposed for them, and Sorbanikans do not? This is wholly pointless and serves no purpose other than to threaten national wildlife and nature spots. |
| Date | 09:58:29, January 27, 2008 CET | From | General Confederation of Labour | To | Debating the Ecology changes |
| Message | Why do you think Sorbanika wants to be a part of Likatonia? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 175 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 242 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 249 |
| Random fact: Bill descriptions must be in English, or at least include a full English translation. Bill titles may appear in a language that is appropriate to the nation and are not required to be translated into English. |
| Random quote: "The worst thing the bad guys can do is force us to doubt the good ones." - Viria Agelasta, former Selucian politician |