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: Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan
Details
Submitted by[?]: Jelbanian Liberty Front
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes for the ratification of a treaty. 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 3261
Description[?]:
| This bill asks for the ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law. |
Proposals
Article 1
Ratify the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:09:00, February 19, 2012 CET | From |  United New Jelbania | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | The reason for us passing this motion is for? |
| Date | 12:46:08, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Modern Democratic Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | Why does this action need to be taken, in the proposing party's view? |
| Date | 13:21:06, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Al Jabha al-Queranzīa Badariyā | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | the reason that this country want to declare war on my and i am in ATR so i am your ally and you can help your allies |
| Date | 13:47:47, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | Because we are republicans. |
| Date | 13:47:56, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | Because we are republicans. |
| Date | 13:48:40, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | Not all of us |
| Date | 13:50:12, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Progressive Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | Can the Jelbanian Liberty Front confirm this? |
| Date | 13:57:54, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Modern Democratic Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | At present there is no way we can support the instigation of free trade barriers on the basis that, as far as we have been shown, there exists no evidence that the United States of Jelbania is at any way at risk. |
| Date | 13:59:57, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | Here, Here! |
| Date | 14:01:42, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | Their news article,and threats. |
| Date | 14:02:54, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Aster Federation Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | Exact evidence (links) would suffice here |
| Date | 14:10:44, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Jelbanian Liberty Front | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3913&p=35919&hilit=Jelbania#p35919 |
| Date | 16:51:12, February 19, 2012 CET | From | Modern Democratic Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | With threats being made to place mines, would a trade embargo not simply aggravate the situation? It sounds from the release that we can consider trading terminated anyhow. Perhaps we should simply withdraw our diplomats as they stipulate, expel theirs and try to mediate further without losses to our economy. |
| Date | 02:08:52, February 20, 2012 CET | From | United New Jelbania | To | Debating the Ratification of the Multi-Embargo Against Kafuristan |
| Message | Given the delicate situation, it is our view that an embargo would not be the proper first step if we would want to initiate a peaceful and diplomatic dialogue. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 163 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 456 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 81 |
| Random fact: Party organizations are eligible for deletion if they are over 50 in-game years old, do not have at least 1 active member or are historically significant and possess historically significant information. |
| Random quote: "The one bonus of not lifting the ban on gays in the military is that the next time the government mandates a draft we can all declare homosexuality instead of running off to Canada." - Lorne Bloch |