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: Food Safety Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
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: August 2125
Description[?]:
| This bill allows for the local government to determine food safety. The same safety standards apply as the current law, but localisation allows the freeing up of national government resources such as manpower, money, and the probality of unenforcement due to the sheer number of inspections required. We believe local government can enforce such laws more efficently than the national government. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Food safety policy.
Old value:: The government introduces, and actively enforces, food standards provisions.
Current: The government introduces, and actively enforces, food standards provisions.
Proposed: Local governments determine food safety standards.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:44:18, October 12, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Food Safety Act. |
| Message | You are kidding, yes? This is a foolish proposal. Not only does it undermine the basic idea of having food safety laws in the first place, but it also, in no way, decreases the cost of operating a food safety system. What is the point of allowing Deltaria to set a different idea of food safety then Stormridge? Or, as you are advocating above, still having a single standard of food safety, then what is the point of handing control of this to the local government. All this does is increase the amount of money spent as now, instead of one ministry knowing where everyone is, having records of all movements of foodstuffs and cleanliness of abattoirs, farms etc this would instead be changed to at least 5, if not more, different Government agencies doing the same job. This would increase bureaucracy, as each agency would have to communicate with each other, assuming they would. Slow down the passage of information between those places requiring inspection and the information reaching all areas around the Country and increase the cost on local businesses as they would have the requirement to be inspected by differing agencies as soon as any of their goods passed the Constituency line. The change would be expensive, to both Government and Industry, a bureaucrats nightmare, and a waste of tax payers money. We vote no. |
| Date | 21:22:38, October 12, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Food Safety Act. |
| Message | Well put, WSS. As for it "freeing up of national government resources such as manpower, money, and the probality [sic] of unenforcement due to the sheer number of inspections required," how would this change by localization? Food inspection will still cost money, require people, and warrant inspections. The taxpayers will pay for this whether or not it's the feds or local governments administering the service. Having it under national jurisdiction would allow for less overlap in these services, which means more efficiency. Ergo, it would cost less. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 161 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 239 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval. |
| Random quote: "I took the initiative in creating the internet." - Al Gore |