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: Pro-Diplomatic Relations Policy Changes
Details
Submitted by[?]: Williams Family
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: March 3299
Description[?]:
| Gives diplomats some level some immunity from prosecution for criminal offences. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning diplomatic immunity.
Old value:: The government grants no diplomatic immunity and foreign diplomats are subject to arrest and prosecution and civil action under all laws of the host nation.
Current: Diplomats are exempt from prosecution for criminal acts but not from civil lawsuits, but may still be expelled because of criminal acts.
Proposed: Diplomats are exempt from prosecution for criminal acts but not from civil lawsuits, but may still be expelled because of criminal acts.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:11:03, May 03, 2012 CET | From |  Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Pro-Diplomatic Relations Policy Changes |
| Message | We, the Karav family especially, already have ties with other nations. We have already played major roles in international affairs. We cannot, however, obligate the government to alignment with foreign entities. Let the nation remain neutral. Allow local government autonomy so that different royal families may have their own allies. The foreign affairs, of each house, will be unregulated by the federal government. Every house is free to make allies with other nations. Every house already has its own military: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=344680 The leader of every house already controls his own subnational kingdom as a non-sovereign monarch: http://classic.particracy.net/viewnews.php?newsid=334314 |
| Date | 17:15:34, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Williams Family | To | Debating the Pro-Diplomatic Relations Policy Changes |
| Message | Most nations have a policy that gives foreign diplomats and common level of immunity - we should follow suit. |
| Date | 17:17:37, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Pro-Diplomatic Relations Policy Changes |
| Message | No! We should not "follow suit" Even if this law passes, the Karav army will give itself the power to arrest diplomats who cause problems in Iker Ado. |
| Date | 18:05:55, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Williams Family | To | Debating the Pro-Diplomatic Relations Policy Changes |
| Message | Oh? Could it be that the Count would risk civil war (by defying the law) rather than simply expel an offending diplomat? I'ts not very becoming behavior for a head of state... |
| Date | 19:24:55, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Pro-Diplomatic Relations Policy Changes |
| Message | The law of "Beluzia" doesn't have to apply to "The Karav Empire" which is an autonomous region of Beluzia. South Beluzia has de facto independence status. Loyalist militaries, of families, have the right to act according to recognized law over crap on paper. Such paper is better flushed down toilets. Do not disrespect the Count especially in His Excellency's absence. |
| Date | 21:56:02, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Williams Family | To | Debating the Pro-Diplomatic Relations Policy Changes |
| Message | Oh? Can you direct me to the proof to substantiate the claim of "de facto" independence? If it's not in law somewhere, it's rubbish. And you and I clearly differ on what constitutes disrespect as opposed to freedom to express one's views. |
| Date | 22:01:26, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Pro-Diplomatic Relations Policy Changes |
| Message | You're making no sense by saying "if it's not in the law somewhere" when I made reference to "de facto" status. A "de jure" status refers to something being officially recognized or enforced by law. The contrast with "de facto" status should be paid attention to. Something achieves "de facto" status when it does not depend on the law to exist. -- The Karav family has its own military, which is the South Beluzian Army. "South Beluzia" sometimes includes other parishes, but it never includes Negunia. Recognition of "East Beluzia" is given when Iliathar and Bailon are united. Negunia would be referred to as "North Beluzia" in such an instance. |
| Date | 22:02:28, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Pro-Diplomatic Relations Policy Changes |
| Message | Your "views" are unrealistic. Reference to civil war? That is pathetic. Who are we risking civil war with? The Williams family does not control an army: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=344680 |
| Date | 22:17:39, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Williams Family | To | Debating the Pro-Diplomatic Relations Policy Changes |
| Message | You would be risking civil war with the other families if you defied a law that was passed. OOC : My point was : Something that is "de facto" can't be substantiated...so you could pretty much say whatever you want. I never said the Williams' family controlled an army... The next elections should be interesting however. |
| Date | 22:22:32, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Pro-Diplomatic Relations Policy Changes |
| Message | OOC: It can. If it's recognized by other players, but not by law, it is considered de facto in-game. It's the same way FARC was once in de facto control of 1/3 of Colombia once. It's the same way Taiwan is de facto independent, but de jure, it's not substantiated. It's laws are not recognized much. It is not allowed to sit in the UN, and it is considered property of the People's Republic by the One China Policy in many nations. It's the same way the USA is in de facto control of Afghanistan. South Beluzia is independent, and that's recognized on the forums. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 21 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 78 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players must never be asked for their Particracy password. This includes Moderation; a genuine Moderator will never ask for your password. |
| Random quote: "The trouble with unemployment is that the minute you wake up in the morning you're on the job." - Slappy White |