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 United Countries
Details
Submitted by[?]: Radical Freedom Party
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: March 2158
Description[?]:
| This bill asks for the ratification of the United Countries treaty. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law. |
Proposals
Article 1
Ratify the United Countries.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:24:07, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | Considering that many nations have already joined the United Countries we feel it appropriate that membership is reconsidered. |
| Date | 01:24:42, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | Especially as two of our neighbours have already joined. |
| Date | 09:57:04, December 15, 2005 CET | From |  Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | Absolutely not. The UC is ineffective, it is was created by the socialist labour party of dundorf, a party that tried to start a war with us and threatened us, oppresses its people and tries to stifle political opposition. The Freedom Party is completely against joining such an institution as it is not in Rutania's interests. We should be looking for other countries to work with so that we are safe. Selucia and Hobrazia would be good choices. |
| Date | 12:09:39, December 15, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | 1. It is our duty to make it effective, you cannot blame something for being ineffective if we don't even allow it to be effective. Hence we should join. 2. Who cares who took the initiative to found it? It's not as if we're ceding our sovereignty to Dundorf. 3. Joining it IS in Rutania's interests. 4. By joining the UC we can make sure that the world and Rutania is safe, because we would be working with all kinds of countries and we would be contributing to international peace, security and justice and the spirit of brotherhood and amity amongst all of mankind. 5. Selucia is already a member of the UC. 6. Your isolationism is really disgusting. We must bring Rutania unto the international scene! |
| Date | 19:08:42, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Alcoholic Party II | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | RSDP: 1: So you reckon we should sign the Axis Agreement or Pax Deltaria so we can try and convince the Dynastia how fun peace and human rights are? 2: Sure, but signing up to the schemes of the Dundorfian tyrants hardly sends them a message of disapproval. 3: Not at all. The treaty makes a big deal about unity and the common good. I imagine this will be more of a compromise of Rutania's interests than a benefit. 4 and 5 are valid points. 6: Loving the creative mixture of old english and street talk. Hark unto me, yo. Ye olde International community scene is where it's at. |
| Date | 14:39:20, December 16, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | "6: Loving the creative mixture of old english and street talk. Hark unto me, yo. Ye olde International community scene is where it's at." That's what ya get being a party that does allow people that didn't go to university to participate in elections. :-P |
| Date | 00:07:11, December 17, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | World government? No thanks. |
| Date | 01:08:54, December 17, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | What makes you think that FP members went to university? Or are you saying that all FP members and LAP members are better educated hence our capitalist beliefs. OR Are you insinnuating that all poor people or uneducated people will vote RSDP. |
| Date | 16:56:35, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | OOC: we lost the debate from yesterday, including my defence of the act. Sucks big time but cannot help it :/ |
| Date | 17:09:16, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | What was your defense? |
| Date | 17:36:16, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | The United Countries is nothing akin to a world government. It does not have any such powers and is not a threat to Rutanian sovereignty in any way. Rather, it can be seen as a talking shop for the international community. The idea behind this is to create some more mutual understanding and cooperate where possible. Having an instrument to stay in touch and have an international debate is, in our opinion, a good thing. The RPF is also of the opinion that one cannot possibly oppose resolving to cooperate in areas where one all agrees. |
| Date | 18:49:54, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | The GRP is tentaively supporting this treaty as of this moment, but could be persuaded either way. |
| Date | 19:20:52, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | Upon further reflection, the GRP has decided to vite against. This treaty seems vague and compromising at times, specialy militarily. We do not wish to be controlled by the International Community. |
| Date | 19:37:54, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | You cannot have \"international law\" and at the same time not have any semblence of a world government. Afterall, a legal system is a sign of a nationstate, is it not? |
| Date | 21:20:08, December 18, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Ratification of the United Countries |
| Message | The intention of the Treaty was that the details be worked out later but that we can state our commitment to international peace, security and justice and international co-operation, without actually being bound by anything yet. We are not compromised by anything in the treaty, nor do we have any real obligations under it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 235 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 319 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 45 |
| Random fact: Jelbic = "Group of cultures with an overall Central Asian/Eurasian steppe theme, using a fictional language developed specifically for Particracy". |
| Random quote: "The use of solar energy has not been opened up because the oil industry does not own the sun." - Ralph Nader |