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: Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania
Details
Submitted by[?]: Radical Freedom Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2184
Description[?]:
| The Federated Parliament of Rutania, here assembled, and with the interests of all Rutanians at heart; Believing that Rutania is one nation, unified in liberty; Committed to the common welfare of all Rutanians in a democratic state; -Resolves that all Rutanians in the Federated States shall be bound together by the 'Commonwealth of Rutania' ; -Declares itself the sole legislative power for the Commonwealth of Rutania; -Further declares that the Commonwealth of Rutania shall inherit all the territories, laws, institutions and rights of the Federated States of Rutania; -Commits itself to reforming these institutions in an appropriate fashion, in due time. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:33:28, January 07, 2006 CET | From |  Freedom Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | I would not mind Free Republic of Rutania but Republic of Rutania sounds better |
| Date | 16:37:35, January 07, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | We would prefer another name... |
| Date | 16:45:42, January 07, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | (agitation rises) Yes, we would all "prefer" another name. I would "prefer" Free Republic of Rutania but that is not what I am proposing. What is important, though, is whether you will block this bill just because it isn't your ideal name. Constitutional reform bills all require a two-thirds majority and if parties are going to block improvements that are not their ideal option then we will never get anywhere. I implore you to at least support this bill if you think it is an improvement. |
| Date | 23:21:17, January 07, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Republic is acceptable and better but bland. Although I will vote for it, I think we should try to come up with an equally neutral but better name |
| Date | 04:14:59, January 08, 2006 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | The Federated States shall remain the same. The Federated States of Rutania is a recognised Name, not to be confused with any other so-and-so Republics. The Federated States are who we are as a Peoples. we would, however support: Commonwealth of Rutania Union of Rutania Rutanian Federation And we always have the Hope of The Kingdom of Rutania. |
| Date | 21:19:33, January 08, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Commonwealth is nice. My vote is for that. |
| Date | 22:43:13, January 08, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | My problem is that "Commonwealth" tends to indicate a federated union of constituent states. I thought that was what we were moving away from. The same objections are to be made against Union. Calling it "Rutanian Federation" does not change a thing at all. |
| Date | 09:10:20, January 09, 2006 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Well The Nationalist ARE NOT moving from Federated States. Republic wont pass. Commonwealth of Rutania allows the ideas of freedom and unity. |
| Date | 09:25:25, January 09, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | "My problem is that "Commonwealth" tends to indicate a federated union of constituent states. I thought that was what we were moving away from. The same objections are to be made against Union. Calling it "Rutanian Federation" does not change a thing at all." It doesnt, it's just that because of the British RL Commonwealth people think it does. A Commonwealth is any nation in which the wealth is "common", ie. there is no King who owns everything. England was called a Commonwealth between the end of the Civil War and the restoration of the monarchy. It's just a more characterful way of saying "Republic". |
| Date | 10:24:59, January 09, 2006 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Commonwealth is good. |
| Date | 00:54:17, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | if there ia a two-thirds majority we can pass it without the Nationalists as well. To be perfectly frank. And "commonwealth allows the idea of freedom and unity" is an empty prhase IMO. If everyone supports commonwealth I will change the proposal (it hasnt got my preference but it beats Federation) but it is very anglosaxon and federation-ish... |
| Date | 07:23:59, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Well, being a Federation. you'd think it would be a federation-ish Sounds a bit Anglosaxon, so would that mean well vote aginst Republic because it 'sounds' French? |
| Date | 12:07:14, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | I started this initiative to move *away* from Federation. That is the WHOLE POINT. If "Commonwealth" is *not* an excuse to keep that. |
| Date | 16:04:15, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | "Commonwealth" has nothing to do with Federation. Was England a "federation" under the Lord Protectorship? No, maybe? When Shakespear referred to the Roman Republic as a "Commonwealth" in Julius Caesar, was he implying that it was a Federal state? Errr... no? |
| Date | 16:04:26, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | *Shakespeare |
| Date | 16:06:17, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Almost forgot. From Dictionary.com: 1. The people of a nation or state; the body politic. <b>2. A nation or state governed by the people; a republic</b>. 3. Commonwealth 1. Used to refer to some U.S. states, namely, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 2. Used to refer to a self-governing, autonomous political unit voluntarily associated with the United States, namely, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands. 4. often Commonwealth The Commonwealth of Nations. 5. The English state and government from the death of Charles I in 1649 to the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, including the Protectorate of 1653 to 1659. <b>6. Archaic. The public good; commonweal.</b> Do you see the word "Federal" there anywhere? |
| Date | 20:17:33, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Tell that to the nationalists... |
| Date | 21:21:29, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | The Nationalists havent said that they oppose it because it sounds like Federation, you have. Should In infer from that that you retract your previous statement and now join us and the GRP in supporting Commonwealth? It's a good, descriptive yet characterful name. I see no reason why we shouldnt go with it. |
| Date | 21:35:26, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | No. You misunderstood. I do not oppose "Rutanian Commonwealth" but I will note vote it in only to see it used as an argument that we are still a Federation, as the Nationalists now claim. My position, systematically: Acceptable if it gets me a two/thirds majority= Free Republic > Republic > Rutanian Commonwealth Unacceptable = everything Federation-like or vaguely fascist, monarchy options. I am considering a rewording to "Rutanian Commonwealth" in a bill that also *explicltly* establishes us as a unitary state but I cannot get it passed unless the Conservatives speak out now, at the very least. Without conservative support this bill wont be going anywhere right now. |
| Date | 09:02:29, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Why move from Federation for that is what we are? |
| Date | 14:37:13, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Because we want to become something else? And for reasons outlined in the Rutanian Grand Domestic Reform Act. Read that bill if you want to know why we want to change. |
| Date | 23:12:17, January 13, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Basically we are not federal at all, Republic of Rutania sounds fine, as does Commonwealth of Rutania or Rutanian Commonwealth, i prefer Commonwealth of Rutania over Rutanian Commonwealth |
| Date | 20:59:52, January 14, 2006 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Eh. |
| Date | 18:31:08, January 18, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | How about; The United Republics of Rutania or the United Republic of Rutania or the Unified Republic of Rutania |
| Date | 03:01:29, February 10, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Is "Eh" really all the Conservatives have to say about this? *sigh*. I move this act to vote with 'Commonwealth' then. |
| Date | 23:36:46, February 10, 2006 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Act creating the Commonwealth of Rutania |
| Message | Strong no is better. Away with federalism over the collective dead bodies of the Delvarian Radicals. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 451 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 85 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 63 |
| Random fact: If you have a question, post it on the forum. Game Moderators and other players will be happy to help you. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day." - Martin Luther King Jr. |