Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: April 5474
Next month in: 00:33:00
Server time: 07:26:59, April 24, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Monarchy Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: National Democratic Party

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: October 2147

Description[?]:

Lets have a monarchy!

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date13:51:09, November 20, 2005 CET
FromProgressive Imperial Party
ToDebating the Monarchy Act
MessageThe Progressive Imperial Party supports this measure without. A symbolic head of state can do wonders for a nation.

Date13:51:43, November 20, 2005 CET
FromProgressive Imperial Party
ToDebating the Monarchy Act
Messagesorry there- 'without reserve'

Date18:23:38, November 20, 2005 CET
FromAnarcho-Capitalist Front
ToDebating the Monarchy Act
MessageI need to know how this will come about before I make a decision. How will the monarch be chosen? How will he be displaced? How will succession take place?

Date20:57:19, November 20, 2005 CET
FromPeople's Progressive Party
ToDebating the Monarchy Act
MessageA ceremonial monarchy will be the biggest welfare case in our nation's history. To support the monarch and his/her royal family will cost the taxpayers millions just so they can have their fancy ceremonies and symbolic tours. Additionally, it will cause an explosion of yellow press dedicated to monitoring and gossiping about our "royals". It's a waste of money in this party's opinion.

Date08:34:31, November 21, 2005 CET
FromNational Fascisti
ToDebating the Monarchy Act
MessageWe would agree to this if a better title for Head of State was chosen.

Date16:35:13, November 21, 2005 CET
FromUnited Soviet Party
ToDebating the Monarchy Act
MessageWe disagree

Date17:07:31, November 24, 2005 CET
FromProgressive Imperial Party
ToDebating the Monarchy Act
MessageHow about "Lord High Marshal"?

Date17:09:43, November 24, 2005 CET
FromProgressive Imperial Party
ToDebating the Monarchy Act
MessageWe could add a ban on slander of any form on the 'royals'- including any form of gossip. Only shining praise- improves the nation's morale, doncha know!

Date09:20:29, November 25, 2005 CET
FromNational Fascisti
ToDebating the Monarchy Act
MessageWe don't like 'Marshal'.

How about "Supreme High Lord"?

Date03:00:41, November 27, 2005 CET
FromNational Fascisti
ToDebating the Monarchy Act
MessageOOC: Do something about this bill already.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 49

no
     

Total Seats: 270

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Voters have an extra appreciation for bills that actually get passed, so if you want to maximally take profit from your votes, make sure you compromise with others.

    Random quote: "If homosexuality is a disease, let's all call in queer to work. 'Hello. Can't work today; still queer.'" - Robin Tyler

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 73