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: Devolution Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Zardio Federisma Partio
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: June 3348
Description[?]:
| A comprmise act which will finally settle divisive questions. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning who can proceed with adoption; in case adoption is legal.
Old value:: Only heterosexual couples may adopt children.
Current: Only couples may adopt children.
Proposed: Only couples may adopt children.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy toward marriage.
Old value:: The government only recognises civil marriages between a man and a woman.
Current: The government allows all consenting adults to obtain civil marriage contracts.
Proposed: Civil marriages are defined by local governments.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The legality of divorces (if marriages are recognised).
Old value:: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Current: Divorces are legal, be it mutual consent, grounded cause or if one partner wants it.
Proposed: Divorces are prohibited.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on inheritance
Old value:: The government inherits everything, private inheritance is outlawed.
Current: There is a regulated inheritance law, private regulation of inheritance is allowed but also regulated.
Proposed: There are no regulated inheritance laws, inheritance is only regulated by the will of deceased.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change
The government's policy regarding foreign marriages.
Old value:: Only foreign marriages that comply with domestic policy regarding marriage are recognised.
Current: Only foreign marriages that comply with domestic policy regarding marriage are recognised.
Proposed: Local governments regulate the recognition of foreign marriages.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding child benefit.
Old value:: The state guarantees child benefit to families classified as low-income or poor.
Current: The state guarantees child benefit to both low-income families and large families.
Proposed: Child benefit policies are left to local governments.
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change Government policy concerning religions.
Old value:: There is no official state religion, but the government only allows recognized religions. 'Cults' are persecuted.
Current: There is no official state religion, but the government only allows recognized religions. 'Cults' are persecuted.
Proposed: There is no government policy concerning a state religion.
Article 8
Proposal[?] to change Funding of public transport (where applicable).
Old value:: Public transport is fully subsidised for people with low-income, with the remainder "user-pays".
Current: Public transport is fully subsidised for people with low-income, with the remainder "user-pays".
Proposed: Local governments decide upon the funding policy.
Article 9
Proposal[?] to change The right to euthanasia.
Old value:: Euthanasia is illegal but not considered murder.
Current: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Proposed: Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.
Article 10
Proposal[?] to change Licensing of food sales.
Old value:: Food may be sold by licensed vendors only, and shelf lives of foods are enforced.
Current: Food may be sold by licensed vendors only, and shelf lives of foods are enforced.
Proposed: The licensing of food sale is left for local governments to decide.
Article 11
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning forest protection.
Old value:: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Current: The government promotes forest clearance.
Proposed: Forest protection is left to local governments.
Article 12
Proposal[?] to change Sexual education in schools.
Old value:: Schools have an obligation to give sexual education at some point in puberty, but individual students have an opt-out option.
Current: Schools have an obligation to give sexual education at some point in puberty.
Proposed: This decision is up to the schools themselves without government regulation.
Article 13
Proposal[?] to change National Curriculum
Old value:: invalid choice
Current: There is a National Curriculum which all schools are obliged to follow.
Proposed: invalid choice
Article 14
Proposal[?] to change The government's stance on vaccinations.
Old value:: The government mandates vaccination for all children.
Current: The government mandates vaccination for all children.
Proposed: The government encourages vaccinations for children, but does not enforce them.
Article 15
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of the viewing of movies.
Old value:: The government sets a range of standards (to be determined) but these only apply to movie theaters.
Current: The government sets a range of standards (to be determined) but these only apply to movie theaters.
Proposed: The viewing of movies is not regulated by the government.
Article 16
Proposal[?] to change Positive discrimination.
Old value:: No form of positive discrimination is permitted.
Current: No form of positive discrimination is permitted.
Proposed: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Article 17
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Proposed: The policy regarding eminent domain is left to local governments.
Article 18
Proposal[?] to change Higher education tuition policy.
Old value:: The government introduces means tested loans for higher education tuition, to be paid back by students after earnings reach a certain amount.
Current: The government subsidizes tuition only for students from families classified as low-income or poor.
Proposed: The government subsidizes tuition only for students from families classified as low-income or poor.
Article 19
Proposal[?] to change Pre-school education.
Old value:: Pre-school education is private, but the government covers the schoolcosts of poor families.
Current: The government leaves the pre-school education policy to local governments.
Proposed: The government leaves the pre-school education policy to local governments.
Article 20
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on tree plantation.
Old value:: The government requires tree plantation at replacement level for all logging or clearance operations.
Current: Local governments may set plantation policy.
Proposed: Local governments may set plantation policy.
Article 21
Proposal[?] to change The governments stance on religious schools.
Old value:: Religious schools are not allowed.
Current: Religious schools are allowed, but are strictly regulated. Only recognised religions may set up religious schools.
Proposed: Religious schools are allowed, but are strictly regulated. Only recognised religions may set up religious schools.
Article 22
Proposal[?] to change The appointment of mayors.
Old value:: Citizens elect their mayor directly in a local election.
Current: Citizens elect their mayor directly in a local election.
Proposed: Local governments determine the method of appointment.
Article 23
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the legality of abortions
Old value:: Abortion is allowed during the entire course of the pregnancy.
Current: Abortion is allowed during the first trimester.
Proposed: Abortion policies are established by local governments
Article 24
Proposal[?] to change Policy of the government concerning the funding of abortions
Old value:: The government provides abortion funding only for low-income earners.
Current: The government only funds abortions for medical emergencies.
Proposed: The government leaves the funding for abortions up to the local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:49:35, August 01, 2012 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Devolution Act |
| Message | If the NDP wins government in the future, we will attempt to repeal this act almost in its entirety. |
| Date | 10:51:55, August 01, 2012 CET | From | New Democratic Party | To | Debating the Devolution Act |
| Message | Correction: 'substantial parts of this act', instead of 'this act almost in its entirety.' |
| Date | 15:09:16, August 01, 2012 CET | From | Zardio Federisma Partio | To | Debating the Devolution Act |
| Message | Why is that? Why is the NDP so opposed to letting the people govern themselves at the local level? Is that not being more democratic by letting individual communities choose their paths then top down orders from far away government workers? |
| Date | 17:53:54, August 01, 2012 CET | From | Zardic Labour Party | To | Debating the Devolution Act |
| Message | Labour has always stood in favour of devolution - we supported the CRP's Local Autonomy Act last year, even though we were not completely happy with its provisions, in the interests of strengthening the power of the State governments. But this act is not about devolution - it is about legalising discrimination, imposing austerity and enforcing deregulation through the backdoor. In the two decades before the Conservatives were returned to power, there was an understanding that the federal government had the ultimate responsibility for promoting and defending the civil and Human rights of the Zardic people. This legislation, if passed, would render that convention invalid and lead to gross inequalities in the rights and liberties of the residents of different states - and that is precisely what this government desires. Let us take Article 2 of the Act. The federal Government knows that it would be electoral suicide in the marginal states to propose government-mandated racially segregation; but it also knows that allowing private entities to impose segregation policies by law would strip the NDP controlled governorships and legislative assemblies of their power to prevent far-right organisations from imposing racially discriminatory policies on their organs, venues and memberships. Article 5 is simply a bid by the CRP to further infringe upon our civil liberties. Last year they pushed through an un-necessary strengthening of arbitrary policy powers as part of their devolution agenda; devolving responsibility for curfew powers is nothing more than an extension of that policy. Provisions mandating the devolution of responsibility for education, healthcare and welfare are similarly being proposed to make it easier for conservative governments to slash spending and scale back investment in essential public services, all whilst alleviating the federal Government of the moral responsibility for its austerity plans. Like just about everything this government has done, this legislation is not about empowering people - it is about taking away their rights in life and society, about taking away from the poorest and most disadvantaged in our society to appease a wealthy conservative elite. If the Prime Minister is really so concerned about the welfare of the states and their residents, then he would do the decent thing he can do: resign and call an early federal election. |
| Date | 19:12:17, August 01, 2012 CET | From | Zardio Federisma Partio | To | Debating the Devolution Act |
| Message | The CRP has made some modifications based on the input from the ZLP. |
| Date | 19:49:11, August 01, 2012 CET | From | Zardic Labour Party | To | Debating the Devolution Act |
| Message | This legislation is still not acceptable to the Labour Party. At a push, we could offer our support for articles 1, 6, 8, 9 and 21 - but we would have to share the commitment of our coalition partners to repealing the rest of the bill in government. We believe most of these these devolutionary measures go too far and too fast in the wrong policy areas. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 311 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 188 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 251 |
| Random fact: In cases where players introduce RP laws to a nation and then leave, Moderation reserves the discretion to declare the RP laws void if they appear to have fallen into disuse. In particular, please bear in mind that a player who is inexperienced with Particracy role-play and has joined a nation as the only party there should not generally be expected to abide by RP laws implemented by previous players who have been and left. |
| Random quote: "Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society." - Franklin D. Roosevelt |