Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: September 5573
Next month in: 00:18:11
Server time: 19:41:48, November 24, 2024 CET
Currently online (2): AR Drax | itsmenotme | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Legislation proposal - II

Details

Submitted by[?]: United People's Party

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: January 3543

Description[?]:

Changes to Legislation

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date23:21:45, September 04, 2013 CET
FromEncarta Party
ToDebating the Legislation proposal - II
MessageWe do not consent to Articles 3, 4, and 16. We believe that power is a necessity that should be afforded to it's citizens by their government and not in the hands of private business which seeks profits above all else. We also believe that it is the Government's responsibility to set up shelters across the nation for our citizens to retreat to if the need arises. We see it as a strong defensive requirement, much like a well-armed military. To that end, we agree with all but the aforementioned articles.

Date23:22:06, September 05, 2013 CET
FromUnited People's Party
ToDebating the Legislation proposal - II
MessageThank you.
Yes, we do realize that Civil Defence and Power are responsibilities of the Government, and important ones at that. Earlier defences on not considering them as governmental matters have been proved wrong after careful debate, and the articles has been removed. Existing laws in these regards are working good and serve the purpose well.

Regarding, the Public works article, I must clarify that, presently, the Government undertakes no responsibility in public works! That means, all the relevant infrastructure, welfare, etc. fundings and programs, laws, including those in power/energy, education, infrastructure, health amongst many others which are constituents of public works are not put to practice or implemented without detail to public needs, and that explains the pathetic scale of development and apathy in some resource-rich states in our country even today. Public works are the Government's responsibility, more so the local government's, that can identify projects relevant and applicable to it's own requirements and demands, but with funding from the Central/Union Government. I ask of you to reconsider your position on this matter, before the bill is put to voting.

Date23:31:15, September 05, 2013 CET
FromEncarta Party
ToDebating the Legislation proposal - II
MessageAh, you have misunderstood us. We fully support Article 14 and look forward to it's implementation. However, we must ask the question. Should we leave Public works up to local governments entirely, or should we contract with private companies. In support of the latter, we will find it will give the economy a much needed shot in the arm on the private side of things, as well as making our government seem business friendly, without the lax of any sort of regulations or taxes. I think we should consider both options as extremely viable routes.

Date00:11:08, September 06, 2013 CET
FromUnited People's Party
ToDebating the Legislation proposal - II
MessageThat does seem to be a bright option, and our party was in favour of such an option too, but leaving it out to he privates entirely, as the option says, would mean future burden on the people in the form of inflated costs of project, lower employment guarantee in the projects, as well as say, tolls for highways/expressways, bridges and such other money-making mechanisms and that's where we'll need to enforce regulations on them and then that would result in they eventually backing out from such projects...Private participation wouldn't be without their eyes on how to make money in future out of these public projects, which thus have to be the government's responsibility...sort of an ethical responsibility that way!
With the local Government, the idea was to ensure every state, city and further divisions have a say in what projects they want and how to implement them. Plus, that would relieve a huge burden off of the Central Government, which would have to only act as the funding source to the Local Government and a regulator of sorts.
Wish there was a 'Local Government + Private participation with regulation" option!
They sure have many other areas to conduct huge regulation-free businesses, even with some tax-perks!

Some legislations to this regard are in the pipeline, by the way. So not to worry about our businessmen!

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
  

Total Seats: 46

no
 

Total Seats: 53

abstain
 

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: Treaties will be eligible for deletion if they are more than 50 in-game years old and have no currently ratified members.

Random quote: "Because we don't think about future generations, they will never forget us." - Henrik Tikkanen

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 110