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: Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union
Details
Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes for the ratification of a treaty. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2614
Description[?]:
This bill asks for the ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law. |
Proposals
Article 1
Ratify the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 14:23:22, July 28, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | The STTU, which two of our neighbours have already joined, outlines a number of provisions which merely enhance our international outlook. The requirements of the treaty are not stringent, and they give us wide scope to determine domestic law. There are nothing but benefits from this treaty. |
Date | 14:54:35, July 28, 2008 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | HAHA!! Nothing but benefits my butt. Not to mention they have a couple of articles that do not fit with what they are trying to do. |
Date | 23:22:16, July 28, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | Like what? Don't just make broad statements, have some substance. |
Date | 23:33:04, July 28, 2008 CET | From | Hello Kitty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | How about the article on marriage? As far as I know, it has absolutely nothing to do with either trade nor tourism. |
Date | 23:55:35, July 28, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | You mean the one on _foreign_ marriages? How we will respect marriages performed in another member nation? That is quite relevant to international travel. |
Date | 00:00:43, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Hello Kitty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | No it isn't. It has nothing to do with tourism or trade. |
Date | 06:32:14, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | If a married couple are considering places to move to, they would obviously prefer a place where their marriage is recognised. All this is is enhancing recognition of schemes by other governments. |
Date | 12:11:37, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | If a couple is moving here, then it is not tourism Judicial Union. So no. The mariage article has nothing to do with tourism nor does it have anything to do with trade. |
Date | 12:21:17, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | It is trade. |
Date | 12:27:03, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | HAHAHAHA!!!! Oh boy. That has got to be the dumbest statement you have made yet since we have been here. |
Date | 12:31:34, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | There is no reason why residencies cannot be trade. Putting that aside for the moment, why does it even matter if it falls under the ambit of trade or travel? |
Date | 12:36:43, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | Because if they are moving in from another country, it falls under immigration and not trade or tourism. I thought you knew that. |
Date | 12:42:23, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | To quote ourselves: "putting that aside for the moment, why does it even matter if it falls under the ambit of trade or travel?" |
Date | 12:47:12, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | Because it falls under neither one of those things. |
Date | 12:58:06, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | So? Art 5 of the treaty: "This Treaty is designed to promote a free and fair trade of goods and services as well as a free flow of people across [borders]." |
Date | 13:24:25, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | As I said. Has nothing to do with the actual treaty. |
Date | 13:29:17, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | Ok, to quote ourselves (since you don't really seem to be able to piece things together): "Art 5 of the treaty: \"This Treaty is designed to promote a free and fair trade of goods and services as well as a free flow of people across [borders].\"" "If a married couple are considering places to move to, they would obviously prefer a place where their marriage is recognised." Seems like the latter satisfies the goal of the former. |
Date | 17:31:38, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | Now please tell me what that has to do with the title? Oh yea...nothing. |
Date | 23:24:45, July 29, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | ...would you prefer it be called the "Seleyan Trade and Tourism and getting marriages recognised internationally Union"? The name is just a name, representative but not determinative of what is contained. |
Date | 01:26:53, July 31, 2008 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | Thus making it a non-standard treaty. Something you oppose as the debate on our Land Mine Treaty had shown. |
Date | 01:27:14, July 31, 2008 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | Defeated |
Date | 01:27:23, July 31, 2008 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | Thus making it a non-standard treaty. Something you oppose as the debate on our Land Mine Treaty had shown. |
Date | 01:28:30, July 31, 2008 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Seleyan Trade and Tourism Union |
Message | Defeated |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes |
Total Seats: 212 | |||
no |
Total Seats: 233 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 55 |
Random fact: Players should not role-play characters without the consent of the owner, and if they find they have role-played the character beyond what the owner intended, they should withdraw or amend the role-play appropriately. |
Random quote: "Unlike the world of free-markets, in political government when some individuals win, other individuals lose." - Robert Klassen |