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: Nuclear Power Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberty 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: April 2617
Description[?]:
| This will leave nuclear power decisions to the local governments. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: The government does not take any position on nuclear power.
Current: The decision is left up to local governments.
Proposed: The decision is left up to local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:24:06, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Reform Act | | Message | So no logical argument from Judicial Union. Anyone with a logical argument care to make it? |
| Date | 12:40:30, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Reform Act | | Message | Well the onus is on you to show why the law should change, but it's not that hard, so we'll go ahead anyway:
Local governments have roles in regulating the use of their land, and matters relating to their land. Matters relating to non-agricultural subsidies should be left to the national government. |
| Date | 12:42:50, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Reform Act | | Message | In other words, you do not have a reason why it is bad. This is good thing for it will allow the local governments to invest money to nuclear power which will provide jobs for thousands of people. |
| Date | 12:42:51, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Reform Act | | Message | In other words, you do not have a reason why it is bad. This is good thing for it will allow the local governments to invest money to nuclear power which will provide jobs for thousands of people. |
| Date | 13:11:29, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Reform Act | | Message | Not really. It is all in the wording. The wording here makes it plainly stated that local governments decide on nuclear power. It is called a clarification. |
| Date | 13:12:50, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Reform Act | | Message | If a local government wanted to build a nuclear power plant, nothing in the current law stop them. The current law of course prevents them banning nuclear power, and that can only be a good thing. |
| Date | 13:25:11, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Reform Act | | Message | It somewhat does. "Government" can be taken to being all government, national or local. To ban it would be taking a position, in contravention of this law. On the other hand, building a nuclear power plant is not really taking a position, as much as... building a power plant. |
| Date | 17:23:30, July 29, 2008 CET |
From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Power Reform Act | | Message | Well if government can be taken to being all government, then I am glad that we are proposing what we are proposing then. This way, the local governments can set their own policy. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 156 |
| no | Total Seats: 300 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 44 |
| Random fact: Real-life places should not be referenced in Particracy. |
| Random quote: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible." - Donald Trump |