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: Agriculture Act 2979
Details
Submitted by[?]: Coalition for National Unity [CNU]
Status[?]: passed
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: February 2981
Description[?]:
| Secretary of State for Food and Agriculture Chester Maithenbeck, Sen. |
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 the operations of low-income farming families.
Proposed: Agricultural crops which are considered beneficial to the enviroment or to the continued ecological safety of the state are subsidized.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Commercial fishing regulation.
Old value:: There are no limits on the amount of fish that may be caught.
Current: There are no limits on the amount of fish that may be caught.
Proposed: The government establishes fishing quotas.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning the use of pesticides.
Old value:: There is no government oversight or regulation of pesticides.
Current: There is no government oversight or regulation of pesticides.
Proposed: Farmers are required to list chemicals used on their crops.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:18:58, August 05, 2010 CET | From |  Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Agriculture Act 2979 |
| Message | "I open the floor for debate and comment from my coalition colleagues." Chester Maithenbeck, Secretary of State for Food and Agriculture. |
| Date | 18:49:58, August 05, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Agriculture Act 2979 |
| Message | Regulation, regulation and regulation mounts to unneccessary bureaucracy and leftist policy. Hopefully the senate will be amended correctly by the public, so that there are enough right wing senators to defeat this lunacy. Harold Douglas, Shadow Food and Agriculture. |
| Date | 18:55:12, August 05, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Agriculture Act 2979 |
| Message | "You may not be concerned with the future of our fishermen Mr. Douglas, however the CUP remain dedicated to ensuring that their way of life is preserved and is sustainable accross time, protected from mass fishing. You may not be concerned with the right of a man to know what he eats, but we in the CUP wish to ensure that all our constituents know what they are putting into their bodies and do so in a well-informed manner. You may not be concerned with the ecological security or environment of the nation, however the CUP would have us protect it and ensure it's sustainability. I also note the lack of respect the ACP shows to the vox populi. There is no "correct" senate make-up, what is correct is what they public choose. It would be wise to remember that." Chester Maithenbeck, Secretary of State for Food and Agriculture. |
| Date | 19:00:26, August 05, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Agriculture Act 2979 |
| Message | All opinion polls and methodology for hundreds of years in this country suggest, most people by on large, support freedom, devolution and deregulation and like to run their lives, their industries and their public services themselves. They don't enjoy a society of rules, regulations and endless bureacracy and whilst it isn't about uncaring natures, it is about preserving the traditions and moral values of Solentia. Harold Douglas, Shadow Food and Agriculture. |
| Date | 19:04:39, August 05, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Agriculture Act 2979 |
| Message | "I fail to see how permitting an individual to know what they are putting into their body restricts them in any way. Fishing quotas are designed to empower the individual, to preserve their jobs where others would allow them to be lost. And subsidies are designed to help, they do not restrict at all- only aid where it is benneficial for all. There is no regulation here, Mr. Douglas. Are the ACP so paranoid that they see demons where there are none?" Chester Maithenbeck, Secretary of State for Food and Agriculture. |
| Date | 19:09:14, August 05, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Agriculture Act 2979 |
| Message | Ms. Maithenbeck, We are opposed for the following reasons. Local governments and local communities do a fine job of Article one as it is, they don't need for the state to take control of this and we don't need more money coming from the state to pay for such things. Secondly, Article two would crush the fishing industry as a cap and a limit would be put on the fishing industry and would not allow for maximum protection to the employer or employee who rely heavily on the fishing industry. You would eseentialy as a government be cutting jobs in this sector, when they are needed most. Thirdly, people are not stupid and nor are farmers. Nothing dangerous would get put into this produce and people would know what is good for them and what is not. They don't need to be patronized by the state. Harold Douglas, Shadow Food and Agriculture. |
| Date | 19:19:14, August 05, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Agriculture Act 2979 |
| Message | "Actually Mr. Douglas, if you checked our budget reccomendation, you would know that less spending on my Department was planned. Your claims of higher costs are void. The budget speaks for itself. I am not sure the gentlemen quite understands the fishing industry. Less money would be made certainly, we accept that, however the jobs of the fishermen would be preserved over a longer more sustainable time period as frankly, large corporations would be unable to dominate the market and take the fish. This move protects Solentia's weakest when they need it. Finally, I believe that people do know what is good for them and what is not yes. However that can only happen when they are told what it is that they are consuming. This is a matter of public health and I am not sure the opposition take this matter seriously. What about allergies or serious medical consitions? Clashes with medicinal drugs? People are at risk if they cannot know what goes into their food. They deserve to be aware and then be allowed to make the decision for themselves. We cannot play economic-theory games with people's lives." Chester Maithenbeck, Secretary of State for Food and Agriculture. |
| Date | 19:23:52, August 05, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Agriculture Act 2979 |
| Message | Ms Maithenbeck, I feel it is you who doesn;t understand the fishing industry and basic economics. In your budget proposal you wanted to slash the budget, this is true. Yet today you want to spend more money from a state level on Agricultural crops. So how would this money be raised when you are making mass cuts to your own dept? Secondly, it depends on your regulations if jobs were lost. If you regulate the amount of fish that can be caught and how much they are sold for and indeed other areas of the industry, some people may not earn enough in order to compete with bigger business, or it may restrict bigger business who won't get enough business for the businesses to survive with huge job losses in their business. Either way, this proposal will cost jobs in some areas depending on where the regulation lies and must be voted down by the next senate, whatever that composition may be. Food and Agriculture Minister, Harold Douglas. |
| Date | 19:31:13, August 05, 2010 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Agriculture Act 2979 |
| Message | "The cuts to my department were purely administrative. The money for this comes from an internal restructure within the department and the shifting of funds from local level subsidy policies which by this Act no longer exist. Is this what the finishing industry is to the ACP? A number on the budget book? Disgusting. Jobs would not be lost by this bill, I completely reject that. Governments do not create or destroy jobs Ms. Douglas, they only create the circumstances surrounding them. This Act restricts the amount of fish that may be caught, which in turn allows smaller businesses and individuals to catch their fair share without big businesses with mass fleets from taking the majority. Equal chance for all, less jobs potentially lost as large coporations are restricted." Chester Maithenbeck, Secretary of State for Food and Agriculture. |
| Date | 19:35:51, August 05, 2010 CET | From | Sue's Corner | To | Debating the Agriculture Act 2979 |
| Message | Exactly, you would be creating 'the right conditions' to destroy jobs. By making this act a state payment rather than a local govt payment, shows you don;t trust local govt and local people to make their own decisions and this what is ACTUALLY seriously disgusting. How would this be regulated, are you personally going to go along to every boat venture and count the number of fish in the fishermens buckets? Are you going to place them back personally and tell them to stop being so greedy? Are you going to make sure everyone gets paid the same for each fish and that nobody loses their job through your changes? In a word- LUDICROUS. Harold Douglas |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 58 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 42 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Party candidates for head of state elections are not visible to the public. This means that you cannot see who will run and who will not, which adds another strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "An independent is someone who wants to take the politics out of politics." - Adlai Stevenson |