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: Defence Act (compromise bill)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Sozialistische Einheitspartei Dundorfs
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 4069
Description[?]:
| Mitglieder des Reichstages, The G-GRP- SED coaltion agree on many issues but on military matters we differ. However, I feel that might find a some common ground to compromise. Therefore, this bill and I'm asking every party to try and find a solution to this matter. Thank you, Konrad Trammer, Verteidigungsminister Minister of Defence |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards the use of land mines by the army.
Old value:: The use of land mines is allowed.
Current: The use of land mines is allowed but restricted.
Proposed: The use of land mines is allowed but restricted.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change National service.
Old value:: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve a term in the military.
Current: There shall be no mandatory military or civilian national service.
Proposed: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve a term of civilian national service.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of nuclear weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:40:41, August 02, 2016 CET | From | Sozialistische Traditionspartei | To | Debating the Defence Act (compromise bill) |
| Message | Herr Speaker, Our party can agree in all points but Article 3. We think that nuclear weapons shall never be used even if it is a retaliation strike. -Bernhard Schütz, Traditionspartei-Leader |
| Date | 17:44:39, August 02, 2016 CET | From | Orthodoxthalleristische Wahlmänner | To | Debating the Defence Act (compromise bill) |
| Message | Adults can be useful to the nation in a military service or a civilian service, so we support this law as long as adults have to serve their nation. In addition to this we think that the agressive use of nukes isn't needed, but a backup of defensive nuclear weapons is needed. All in all we think that this compromise is a good solution. |
| Date | 17:59:55, August 02, 2016 CET | From | Orthodoxthalleristische Wahlmänner | To | Debating the Defence Act (compromise bill) |
| Message | Adults can be useful to the nation in a military service or a civilian service, so we support this law as long as adults have to serve their nation. In addition to this we think that the agressive use of nukes isn't needed, but a backup of defensive nuclear weapons is needed. All in all we think that this compromise is a good solution. |
| Date | 20:02:53, August 02, 2016 CET | From | Zentristische Partei von Albrunn | To | Debating the Defence Act (compromise bill) |
| Message | We will support. |
| Date | 20:20:01, August 02, 2016 CET | From | Die Grünen | To | Debating the Defence Act (compromise bill) |
| Message | These proposals are timid and not bold enough. |
| Date | 08:16:34, August 03, 2016 CET | From | Sozialistische Einheitspartei Dundorfs | To | Debating the Defence Act (compromise bill) |
| Message | G: don't you agree that this is step in the right direction from your perspective? |
| Date | 10:23:02, August 03, 2016 CET | From | Die Grünen | To | Debating the Defence Act (compromise bill) |
| Message | They're all just extremely small steps and when you think about it, none of the articles really achieve anything. While land mines will be used on a smaller scale they still will be used. We will still be forcing people into 'service' which they may not necessarily want to do. And we will still be giving the green light to the use of nuclear weapons, only this time we'll only be able to use them after we have suffered a nuclear attack first. They all seem rather pointless to me - the only meaningful action to take is to ban all of these things. The Greens will abstain on this bill if put to vote. We cannot be seen to endorse inhumane weapons and state-sponsored patriotism of any kind. |
| Date | 17:07:14, August 03, 2016 CET | From | Sozialistische Einheitspartei Dundorfs | To | Debating the Defence Act (compromise bill) |
| Message | We understand and respect that. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 403 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 97 |
| Random fact: The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to ensure their "Bills under debate" section is kept in good order. Bills which are irrelevant or have become irrelevant should be deleted. Deletion can be requested for bills proposed by inactive parties on the Bill Clearout Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to defend minorities." - Ayn Rand |