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 The Peace Treaty.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Jakanian Liberal Socialists
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: July 2144
Description[?]:
| This bill asks for the ratification of the The Peace Treaty.. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law. |
Proposals
Article 1
Ratify the The Peace Treaty..
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:59:03, October 07, 2005 CET | From | Nudist Party of United Jakania | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Peace Treaty. |
| Message | No. The NP says No |
| Date | 19:55:23, October 07, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Peace Treaty. |
| Message | (that was a quick debate) |
| Date | 19:39:56, October 08, 2005 CET | From | International Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Peace Treaty. |
| Message | I, as the writer of this treaty, wholeheartedly encourage this to be put to a vote and ratified. Through negotiations with the foriegn minister of my new home, have gotten it passed in Dundorf, and hope that you will as well. This treaty gets better the more people sign it, and if you passed this right now, you would be the fourth. Thank You |
| Date | 08:41:50, October 09, 2005 CET | From | Nudist Party of United Jakania | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Peace Treaty. |
| Message | The NP recognizes the IFP's desire to be simple and direct in creating this "uber-treaty", but feels that such a treaty, without spelled out terms of litigation between dissenting nations, a lack of provision for redress if a nation is wrongfully accused of violating said treaty, and the lack of clarification as to the role other signatory nations have in offering aid to a signatory nation that has been overwhelmed. The point of a treaty is not enough to say, we won't attack you, but it should also foster unity and friendship with the other signatory countries, by encouraging (but not demanding) allied assistance against aggression. The NP would like to sign, but as we are already in compliance, and our own national law prohibits us from aggression against other nations, I see no need for us to sign at this time. In other words, I don't see what we get out of it. If the other nations sign it, they won't attack us, whether we sign or not. |
| Date | 00:43:37, November 21, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Peace Treaty. |
| Message | Just to end an era, I'm putting this to vote to get it out of debate after the good... 20 years it's been in there? Something like that. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 114 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 136 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
| Random quote: "The Lord is a man of war" - Exodus 15:3 |