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: Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III
Details
Submitted by[?]: Libertarian Alcoholic Party II
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes the withdrawal from a treaty. It will require half of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2158
Description[?]:
| Hopefully the return of the GRP will allow the abolition of restrictive animal rights treaties. Remember: http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/wiki/index.php/Image:Poster3.PNG |
Proposals
Article 1
Withdraw from the Treaty for the Protection of Endangered Animals.
Article 2
Withdraw from the Treaty on the Keeping of Endangered Animals.
Article 3
Withdraw from the International Ecotourism Treaty.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:33:38, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | Full support. Endangered animals are endangered for a reason! |
| Date | 19:48:27, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | The GRP supports this treaty fully, and sees no reason that it should be opposed. |
| Date | 19:57:33, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | Addendum: The GRP wil not support the withdrawal from thes treaties. OOC: I oppose. Something went terribly wrong; I think I misread something. |
| Date | 20:10:45, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | Why so? These treaties restrict the legislature, and therefore the will of the Rutanian people. If Rutanians want the articles these treaties impose on us, then they can vote in parties that want them. THere is no reason to have them foisted upon us. |
| Date | 20:22:33, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | The LIP speaker makes...an interesting point. The GRP will now recess to consider this point n this treaty, as well as the pollution treaty. OOC: Apologies. I am having a crisis of conscience over what I actually believe here. This may take a while. |
| Date | 20:28:39, December 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | OOC: As I see it, it\'s not a question of whether or not you agree with the *treaty* but whether or not you believe that Parliament should vote to ban itself from even discussing any opinion other than that stated by the treaty. I think others like the RSDP disagree, but meh. |
| Date | 00:22:41, December 19, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | OOC: that is really a way of mis-stating it. The Conservatives, Veritaserum and ourselves have always supported these treaties. Being against them is really the hard-line libertarian stance. Treaties aren't enabling (i.e. forcing parties to do a particular thing) but rather they make certain options impossible. In this case, they rule out severe mistreatment of animals because this is considered a universal value. Or they might, say, guarantee basic human rights by saying slavery is not allowed. It is really a guarantee for a liberal-democratic state. It is also nonsense that treaties take away options. They take 2/3rds majorities to be established but can be revoked by simple majorities. If a simple majority feels that they need to have some anti-animal option they can revoke the treaty. However I think it is rather important that animal rights are in this case guaranteed. |
| Date | 09:54:47, December 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | OOC: The Conservatives arent actually Libertarian, they're Conservatives, and I dont have a clue what Veritaserum are. A Libertarian point of view is to say that you believe in national sovereignty, and that you think that individual parliaments need to make up their own minds. If the treaty said something like "We would create an international anti-animals trading authority to regulate the trading of animals" then I would give it thought, because it is doing something that actually *requires* international co-operation. These treaties, as they stand, do nothing that countries cant do unilaterally and so the situation should default to national sovereignty, and allow each nation to make up its own mind. |
| Date | 18:23:24, December 19, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | These treaties do not restrict our Federal Parliament at all! They are just international agreements to protect the environment! Cease this isolationism and just admit that you don't care about the environment and the future of mankind! |
| Date | 19:36:09, December 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | In what way can something that sets parameters for what we are and are not allowed to have as law be described as "not restricting our Federal Parliament at all"? Do ANY of your arguments make sense...? |
| Date | 21:50:15, December 19, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | Are you really THAT stupid? It's an international agreement to protect the environment, an absolute necessity. Please, these desperate attempts to make it seem as if a treaty ratified by a two-thirds majority is an infringement upon national sovereignty are just pathetic. |
| Date | 21:50:50, December 19, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | BTW, we will request the International Greens to aid us in a massive protest should this horrible affront to human rights pass. |
| Date | 15:39:08, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | "Are you really THAT stupid? It's an international agreement to protect the environment, an absolute necessity. Please, these desperate attempts to make it seem as if a treaty ratified by a two-thirds majority is an infringement upon national sovereignty are just pathetic." It pay be an "absolute necessity" - that is a reasonable view to take, even if I do not agree with it - but you cannot deny that it is also a restriction of sovereignty. The debate is not other whether or not it is a restriction of sovereignty, but whether or not that restriction of sovereignty is WORTH the benefits gained from imposing environmental restrictions on industry. You believe that it is, I believe that it is. They are both reasonable opinions to take, so please stop pretending that this does not affect sovereignty, when it quite clearly does. "BTW, we will request the International Greens to aid us in a massive protest should this horrible affront to human rights pass." And? |
| Date | 15:39:17, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | *It may be |
| Date | 15:40:02, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | "You believe that it is, I believe that it is." should read: "You believe that it is, I believe that it isnt." Im making so many typos today... |
| Date | 17:54:22, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Alcoholic Party II | To | Debating the Trick or Treaty Withdrawl III |
| Message | "Are you really THAT stupid? It's an international agreement to protect the environment, an absolute necessity. Please, these desperate attempts to make it seem as if a treaty ratified by a two-thirds majority is an infringement upon national sovereignty are just pathetic." I'm not asserting that the environment is vital, or that defending the environment instead of people is somehow ignoble (I would make those points, but that's NOT THE ISSUE here). The issue is, a treaty which prevents legislation of any kind is against the human right of self-determination for the Rutanian people. If a majority of democractically elected parties support the relaxation of hunting laws, something which stops them legislating to do so is UNDEMOCRATIC. There's no way to argue against it. We could bicker about the ins and outs of environmentalism all day, that's not set in stone. But if your party truly supports democracy, you cannot deny that the more treaties parliament has to adhere to, the worse. The RSDP is Anti-democracy. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 289 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 265 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 45 |
| Random fact: Hundreds of vessels were lost while traversing the cold waters of the Sea of Lost Souls. It is located between Seleya and Majatra. |
| Random quote: "I think it's about time we voted for senators with breasts. After all, we've been voting for boobs long enough." - Clarie Sargent |