Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: January 5461
Next month in: 01:02:51
Server time: 18:57:08, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (4): albaniansunited | Drax | hyraemous | Ost | 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: Forest Protection Compromise Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Patriot Party

Status[?]: passed

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: December 2550

Description[?]:

Nor do we care!

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date17:32:10, March 20, 2008 CET
FromTuatha Dé Danann
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageSupport wholeheartedly.

Date19:15:48, March 20, 2008 CET
FromGreenish Liberal Democratic Socialists
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
Messagesupport as well

Date19:42:04, March 20, 2008 CET
FromRightist Party
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageWe also support.

Date23:11:12, March 20, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageWe oppose.

Date23:26:20, March 20, 2008 CET
FromPatriot Party
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageAnd why are you obecting JUP!

Date23:30:09, March 20, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageForests belong to local governments and they are in the best place to regulate them, which is why we voted for the current scheme of devolution, and against its removable. Because these two proposals are in the same act, we have no option but to oppose them both. The forest management change might be acceptable, it's hard to say.

Date23:45:20, March 20, 2008 CET
FromPatriot Party
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageSo basically you object to Article 1.

Date23:46:19, March 20, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageWe definitely object to the change in the forest protection laws.

Date00:02:12, March 21, 2008 CET
FromPatriot Party
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageThat's because you do not love the forest.

Date00:15:36, March 21, 2008 CET
FromJudicial Union Party
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageThe people of Boruska "love the Boruska forest" much more than bureaucrats in Sangon "love the Boruska forest".

Date00:19:04, March 21, 2008 CET
FromPatriot Party
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageThat I can say is false. We the people of Tukarali love the forests of Tukarali.

Date00:29:39, March 21, 2008 CET
FromTuatha Dé Danann
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageTouché

Date00:31:15, March 21, 2008 CET
FromTuatha Dé Danann
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
MessageTouché

Date00:42:37, March 21, 2008 CET
FromPatriot Party
ToDebating the Forest Protection Compromise Act
Message*curtsies*

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
     

Total Seats: 213

no
 

Total Seats: 112

abstain
  

Total Seats: 145


Random fact: Don't vote yes on a cabinet coalition that doesn't give you the power that you deserve.

Random quote: "It would be nice if the poor were to get even half of the money that is spent in studying them." - Bill Vaughan

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 80