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: Delegation Act: Infrastructure
Details
Submitted by[?]: Beluzian Coalition of the Regions
Status[?]: passed
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: March 3924
Description[?]:
| To delegate more power to the regions. Maureen Lander Minister of Infrastructure and Transport |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Proposed: The policy regarding eminent domain is left to local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Current: The government requires most energy to be generated by nuclear power.
Proposed: The decision is left up to local governments.
Article 3
Withdraw from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government policy regarding housing.
Old value:: All housing is private but rent is subsidised for low-income households.
Current: The state contracts with private companies to provide public housing.
Proposed: Housing policy is to be determined by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:56:02, October 13, 2015 CET | From | Bailonese Council Communist Party (BCCP) | To | Debating the Delegation Act: Infrastructure |
| Message | The EPB cannot agree with giving up nuclear power to local governments, but instead wishes to ban it (as if a nuclear reactor meltdown does occur, it will affect everything in the nation (not just humans)). However, delegating the responsibility to local governments is a lot better than federal encouragement and as such, the EPB would vote "yes" to this bill if the proposal was left unchanged. Our party agrees with all other policies, including the treaty withdrawal. |
| Date | 00:50:51, October 14, 2015 CET | From | National Freedom Party | To | Debating the Delegation Act: Infrastructure |
| Message | Irresponsible separatism that divides our nation and encourages local governments to do as they please with no concern for national unity and political homogeneity. There is no great nation that achieved that status through decentralization and delegation to local authorities. |
| Date | 00:54:38, October 14, 2015 CET | From | Bailonese Council Communist Party (BCCP) | To | Debating the Delegation Act: Infrastructure |
| Message | Local governments do what their local residents demand, not what an overreaching federal government says. National unity is synonymous with tyranny if the people do not want to be united. People have a right to have their local policies determined by themselves as long as it does not violate the security of others. Our party supports separatism and rejects imperialist policies, foreign or domestic. |
| Date | 13:37:13, October 14, 2015 CET | From | Beluzian Coalition of the Regions | To | Debating the Delegation Act: Infrastructure |
| Message | This has nothing to do with seperatism. The goal of this- and other policies is to have people in the regions decide about local issues. Of course, there still will be federal projects and responsibilities. That's why the Federal Budget has been raised by this Cabinet. In fact, one might say that the enormous budget cut, caused by the NFP in de past just lead to an extreme poor and powerless Federal Government. This BCR Government repaired that failure. A great achievement! Hardy (MP) Partyleader |
| Date | 02:17:34, October 16, 2015 CET | From | National Freedom Party | To | Debating the Delegation Act: Infrastructure |
| Message | An inflated government budget seems out of place when most if not all the policies the BCR has advocated call for delegation to regional governments, each of which has its own budget. I don't see how the BCR can justify as massive an increase in the federal budget as the one it passed while it has diminished the very responsibilities of government that could possibly justify the increase in government funds. Furthermore, the NFP has always advocated an end of federal subsidies, a delegation to the private sector, maintenance of federal political unity, and elimination of costly economic regulations. We created an economy where wealth rose, more rose out of the middle class into prosperity and the government realized its role as a facilitator of business, not a business itself. Thats the NFP plan and the NFP record. The BCR's plan? Higher taxes, less freedom, and dangerous abandonment of government responsibilities. Manuel Izaguirre, Former Prime Minister |
| Date | 08:33:13, October 16, 2015 CET | From | Beluzian Coalition of the Regions | To | Debating the Delegation Act: Infrastructure |
| Message | I would like to remind the Hon. Gentleman that the budget cut he's talking about was drastic and left the federal government powerless. This Government brought it back on its feet. Nevertheless, I would like to mention that this BCR budget still means a substantial reduction of Government spending compared with the budget from before the NFP-BCR coalition. Hardy (MP) Partyleader |
| Date | 10:01:50, October 17, 2015 CET | From | National Liberal Party | To | Debating the Delegation Act: Infrastructure |
| Message | I disagree with article 2. But once again, in this debate, we have seen the two major parties debate between plans that are almost identical. Perhaps it's time for a real alternative. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 241 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 209 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play". |
| Random quote: "There are people in the world so hungry that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread." - Mahatma Gandhi |