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: Hobrazian Law Simplifications Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: We Say So! 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: January 2556
Description[?]:
| In order to reduce the complexity within the current legal systems of this Nation, the Government will, henceforth and with immediate effect, enact the following proposals into law. Article 1: National Parks. In order to guarantee clean, accessible access to natural greenery and protection of sites deemed to be of importance to protected species as well as providing areas for public relaxation and entertainment, the Government will actively support a national network of parks and mariners designed to provide green spaces throughout the Country. The Government will work in conjunction with both local and national community leaders to guarantee that the areas designated for these parks and mariners will provide the best quality possible for public access as well as the protection of species within these ecosystems. In so doing, local bureaucracy expenditure will be reduced as all expenditure can be expressed through a single national budget. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government devolves park policy to local governments.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:38:30, March 31, 2008 CET | From |  Liberal Progressive Party | To | Debating the Hobrazian Law Simplifications Act |
| Message | The LPP is ready to vote YES, provided article 1 of the proposal is removed. Our position has the following grounds : Policy regarding a National Park System : protection of nature is too many times in conflict with short term economic interests. Local governements, are more easily affected by private interests and therefore less motivated to protect Hobrazia Natural treasures for future generations. It is in our collective interest to protect these treasures, even against the will of individual local governements. We support the proposed alteration. Policy regarding the National Cultural and Historic Sites and Monuments : Turism is a source of wealth. Each region is certainly more qualified and more motivated in protecting its specific Culture, Sites and Monuments than the central government. Furthermore, they are more effective in such task than the central goverment. And finally, we believe that central goverment has many other important tasks to do. We will rather have the executive focused in solving our real problems, than in micro-managing the nation. We oppose the proposed alteration. If the We Say So Party is willing to separate the two proposals into two different bills, we will gladly vote each proposal according to the positions expressed. Otherwise, we will vote against the current form of the bill. |
| Date | 22:24:36, March 31, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Hobrazian Law Simplifications Act |
| Message | We are willing, although with much trepidation, to split the proposals, however we would request that the honourable members of the LPP reconsider their position in regards article 2 of this bill. Whilst we agree that tourism is a source, indeed a very important source, of wealth we disagree that the local government would be more effective in maintaining historical sites than the central government (or in this case, a centrally appointed, but inherently separate body) in maintaining sites of interest or importance. We would point out that local governments are often much more concerned with short term economic improvement, as pointed out by yourselves, rather than the long term cultural and historical protection of this nation. What might seem of little importance locally can be of great importance nationally. We point to the forest near the City of New Krupskaya which, from a local economic point of view, would be perfect for felling and the jobs it would create. For the nation as a whole the loss of this forest would be disastrous, not least for the nation due to its historical importance, but also for its cultural significance in regards the Hobaist religion. Whilst we are not suggesting that the forest would be felled, we are merely trying to show the importance of maintaining a national identity for the nation rather than allowing short termism, which is something most local governments can be accused of, compared to taking a national outlook. |
| Date | 22:45:51, March 31, 2008 CET | From | Liberal Progressive Party | To | Debating the Hobrazian Law Simplifications Act |
| Message | Dear We Say So Party, I believe there is a communication error between us. The LPP party supports the article 2 of your bill. We agree with the protection of the Krupskaya forest at a national level. We disagree with the article 1 of the bill. Besides the previously pointed out reasons, we would like to add that while nature protection can be prosecuted objectively and without ambiguity, culture can not. In some of our regions Bull fighting is an secular tradition. In some others is considered a barbarity. Should the central government take a stance in this matter? Should the central government decide whether a centennial bullfighting arena should be protected as a cultural site or condemned as a monument to barbarity? We believe this decision should be up to local governments. If not we risk the promotion of ancient feuds between regions, a problem that we do not need. Cultural Sites should be defined, classified and protected locally in order to protect the beautifull and rich diversity of our nation which is an opportunity for turistic explotation. Therefore we oppose article 1, while supporting article 2. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 156 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 244 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players using inactive accounts and/or accounts from outside nations may only propose bills and/or contribute to discussions, whether IC (in-character) or OOC (out-of-character) with the general consent of the players in the nation. |
| Random quote: "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." - Thomas Paine |