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: Cities (Civil Defence) Amendment Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union Party
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 2528
Description[?]:
| An act to require all newly built buildings to have facilities for civil defence. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Civil defence is the government's policy on providing shelters to be used in the event of attacks on major cities, mainly nuclear attacks and bombing.
Old value:: The government builds and maintains a network of shelters across the nation.
Current: The government builds and maintains a network of shelters across the nation.
Proposed: No new buildings may be constructed unless they feature provisions for civil defence.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:15:35, February 04, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Cities (Civil Defence) Amendment Act |
| Message | Currently we maintain a number of buildings across the nation for the unlikely event that we will be attacked. Of course it is necessary that we have such facility, but do we really need buildings specifically dedicated to it? If we have every building featuring some civil defence capabilities, we can save government money on maintaining these, and improve nationwide coverage. Everyone wins. |
| Date | 13:10:48, February 04, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Cities (Civil Defence) Amendment Act |
| Message | Current law is fine. |
| Date | 13:16:33, February 04, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Cities (Civil Defence) Amendment Act |
| Message | Not really necesary, as the current law is aleady more than sufficient enough |
| Date | 10:37:53, February 06, 2008 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the Cities (Civil Defence) Amendment Act |
| Message | oppose what a boondoggle such a plan would be building unnecessary defense capabilities into every single building |
| Date | 21:02:31, February 06, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Cities (Civil Defence) Amendment Act |
| Message | "No new buildings may be constructed unless they feature provisions for Civil Defence." Why on earth would we demand from everyone to build a nuclear bunker under their house or in their garden? This will only cost money. |
| Date | 04:41:07, February 07, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Cities (Civil Defence) Amendment Act |
| Message | Defeated |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 161 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 339 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Voters have an extra appreciation for bills that actually get passed, so if you want to maximally take profit from your votes, make sure you compromise with others. |
| Random quote: "When strangers start acting like neighbors, communities are reinvigorated." - Ralph Nader |