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: Quota Abolition Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM)
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 2887
Description[?]:
| This Act will abolish fishing quotas. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Commercial fishing regulation.
Old value:: The government establishes fishing quotas.
Current: Local governments can establish fishing quotas
Proposed: There are no limits on the amount of fish that may be caught.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:49:26, January 31, 2010 CET | From |  Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Quota Abolition Act |
| Message | Rt Hon Duchess Thompson MP: Mr Speaker, in a society that has become more and more concerned about actively assisting the poor, how can we justify fishing quotas? Not only does it artificially increase the market value of fish, affecting the pockets of those most in need, but it means that thousands, if not millions, of dead fish are being thrown back into the waters after they have been accidentally caught. This is a gross hypocricy, if not a crime. |
| Date | 20:10:22, January 31, 2010 CET | From | House Lusk-Nat'l Syndicalist Party (UM) | To | Debating the Quota Abolition Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, fishing is a dangerous and environmentally destructive practice. Fishing quotas are a way to compromise with the traditional livelihoods of thousands, but eventually we will not be able to abide continued fishing and will have to ban the practice entirely. The NSP will continue to place ecological concerns above the concerns of any single human, or sector of humans. |
| Date | 20:16:53, January 31, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Quota Abolition Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, it is a great pity that the NSP take this view, although it does not surprise us. Should ecological concerns dictate that all humans should be forbid from having more than one child, would the NSP propose actively criminalising parents who accidentally conceive a second time? Would they seek out and murder second-borns, and would they have parents sterilised after the first-born? Whilst such claims may seem extreme, their statement begs us to wonder. |
| Date | 18:17:36, February 01, 2010 CET | From | United Front for Change | To | Debating the Quota Abolition Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, the CLP is quite mistaken on this issue. The problem is not one of absolute choice between the economy or the environment. We must achieve a workable balance between the two. The current law -- allowing economic progress while protecting natural wildlife so that fish can reproduce -- does just that. |
| Date | 10:26:41, February 02, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Quota Abolition Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, the way in which the fisherman of Falristan have been effected would lead them to disagree with the parties opposite on this crucial issue. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 71 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 231 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 89 |
| Random fact: Cabinet ministers who disagree seriously with the head of government would usually be expected to resign. Parties within the cabinet may attempt to manoeuvre to replace the head of government though, for example by proposing a new cabinet bill or voting for an early election. |
| Random quote: "We have a culture, a strong, vibrant, 'real' culture. Most of the outside world does not. They haven't bled enough for it." - Lászlo Nádašdy, former Deltarian nobleman |