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: More Fish 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 2136
Description[?]:
| This bill eliminates the restrictive government quotas that deny fisherman a chance at a proper income. As fish stocks are normal there is no harm to changing the law that will feed more people and provide income for fishermen. Stocks will be monitered for decline and if needed the quotas can be reinstated. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Commercial fishing regulation.
Old value:: The government establishes fishing quotas.
Current: The government establishes 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 | 11:22:23, November 04, 2005 CET | From |  Hobrazia First | To | Debating the More Fish Act. |
| Message | If the quotas were removed fish stocks would decline, and then the goverment would have to bring in even tighter quotas to try and bring fish levels up to a normal level. This proposal may be in the short term interests of the fishing industries but in the long term, even if quotas are reintroduced it will still be harmfull to the fishing industry. |
| Date | 12:01:59, November 04, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the More Fish Act. |
| Message | Are stocks down? No, and unless it's proven this law is unecessary. Government can't set quotas just because "stocks may go down" in the future. |
| Date | 12:10:25, November 04, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the More Fish Act. |
| Message | It is better to prevent problems than to try to stop them later on. Removing quotas would mean that any attempts to later reintroduce them would be against tough opposition from fishermen and women. You propose having a short-term gain in return for the risk of a total loss to this section of our economy. |
| Date | 14:42:35, November 04, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the More Fish Act. |
| Message | We cannot support this unthought through law. Short term gain should not be supported with the loss of long term stability. "Are stocks down? No, and unless it's proven this law is unecessary." - Are stocks at an acceptable level? No. See what I did there, I made up a statistic, just like you did. Without any evidence to the contrary, my argument is just as valid as yours, so which is correct... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 158 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 169 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 73 |
| Random fact: Hundreds of vessels were lost while traversing the cold waters of the Sea of Lost Souls. It is located between Seleya and Majatra. |
| Random quote: "In our age, there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia." - George Orwell |