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: Farming Reform Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Anarcho-Poultry 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: September 2119
Description[?]:
| This Bill will reform the agricultural industry and farming practices. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Current: The government subsidises agriculture based on market demand for the crop being grown.
Proposed: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning genetically modified (GM) crops.
Old value:: invalid choice
Current: All activities related to production, selling or researching of GM crops are allowed.
Proposed: All activities related to production, selling or researching of GM crops are banned.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:48:46, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Farming Reform Bill |
| Message | Articles 1 and 3 we are opposed too and article 2 is a rider that has no bearing on farming. |
| Date | 22:54:00, September 29, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Farming Reform Bill |
| Message | We also move to separate. APP, is there a need for these articles to be voted on simultaneously? We support articles 1 and 2, but oppose article 3. Does the APP have any arguments for the banning of GM crops. |
| Date | 12:43:09, September 30, 2005 CET | From | Anarcho-Poultry Party | To | Debating the Farming Reform Bill |
| Message | We are prepared to concede on seperation. However, we feel that all issues are related to the harvesting and production of food-stuffs, and therefore fall within the broader sense of farming. Would parties accept a change to the name of the Bill to relfect this? The issue regarding GM crops is three-fold. Firstly, evidence shows that GM crops have a negative effect on wildlife, bio-diversity and the eco-system in general, whether through the increased use in pesticides on strains grown to be resistant to them (such as Monsanto's Round-Up resistant crops) or through the inadvertent cross-polination. Secondly, issues relating to market monopoly. Regardless of parties' views on free-market capitalism, we believe that all groups would agree that a monopolised market is bad for consumers and producers. GM crops, through the use of genetic patents, have tended to place farmers in a weak position in relation to the seed suppliers - the prime example is the use of Terminator genes, which produce infertile crops from which seeds cannot be gathered. This forces farmers to then purchase seed stock year on year, preventing them from holding any over in case of a 'rainy day'. Also, seed, fertiliser and pesticide suppliers often force farmers to purchase all three goods from the same corporation. This has a negative effect on smaller retailers, who may only produce fertiliser, or pesticide, but not seeds; it also prevents farmers shopping around to get the best deal, which encourages competitive practises and encourages monopolies. Thirdly, there is the issue of health. The effect of GM food stuffs on the consumer and food-chain are untested, and as the use of GM crops is (in our belief) unnecessary, we do not believe consumers should be used as guinea pigs for corporate gain. |
| Date | 21:33:09, September 30, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Farming Reform Bill |
| Message | We still oppose this bill based on Articles 1 and 3. Article 2 needs to be seperated from the rest of the bill for consideration. |
| Date | 22:04:17, September 30, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Farming Reform Bill |
| Message | "We are prepared to concede on seperation. However, we feel that all issues are related to the harvesting and production of food-stuffs, and therefore fall within the broader sense of farming. Would parties accept a change to the name of the Bill to relfect this?" It is not so much the name of the bill as the fact that parties are forced to vote on issues as a whole. We would like to support the first two articles, for example, but we feel that a GM ban is not necessary. While we understand that the reforms come under the heading of farming, there is no operational reason why the articles should be voted on simultaneously (unlike, for example, a bill on passport checks and immigration checks) - policy on fishing quotas has no effect on policy on GM crops (nor visa versa) In light of your arguments against GM crops we feel that some regulation might be in order, perhaps allowing GM varieties on a case-by-case basis to prevent strong-arm tactics by unscrupulous corporations. We remain unconvinced of harmful effects on humans or the environment at large, but the economic concerns are persuasive indeed. <|By the way, try to avoid Real-Life references such as "Monsanto"|> |
| Date | 01:22:06, October 01, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Farming Reform Bill |
| Message | We support number 2 but oppose number 1 and 3 |
| Date | 10:58:11, October 01, 2005 CET | From | Anarcho-Poultry Party | To | Debating the Farming Reform Bill |
| Message | We have removed the second proposal, and will table it in a new Bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 245 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 54 |
| 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: "We pursue no other aim than freedom from oppression, liberty from lies, salvation from irrationality!" - Julius Callus, former Davostani politician |