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: House of Syldavia (iv)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Communitarians' Alliance [PM]
Status[?]: passed
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: April 3497
Description[?]:
| Name of the nation to be: 'United Kingdom of Endralon' |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The official title of the legislative assembly.
Old value:: Federal Assembly
Current: Legislative Senate
Proposed: House of Commons
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Titles of nobility.
Old value:: Titles of nobility are not granted, but their use is not forbidden.
Current: No titles of nobility are granted or recognised, their use is forbidden.
Proposed: Titles of nobility may be granted only by the Head of State.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Privileges of nobility (if nobility is recognised by the government).
Old value:: Nobility confers only titles and certain minor rights, but no political powers, and can be hereditary.
Current: Nobility confers only titles and certain minor rights, but no political powers, and is not hereditary.
Proposed: Nobility confers major rights, and can be hereditary.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribeVoting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 75 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "Those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what the national security requires. It would be obviously undesirable that such matters should be made the subject of evidence in a court of law or otherwise discussed in public." - Unattributed member of the the House of Lords on the removal of trade union rights |