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: Ratification of the The Anantanese Ocean Pact
Details
Submitted by[?]: Classical Liberal Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes for the ratification of a treaty. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 4123
Description[?]:
| This bill asks for the ratification of the The Anantanese Ocean Pact. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law. |
Proposals
Article 1
Ratify the The Anantanese Ocean Pact.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:14:37, October 28, 2016 CET | From | Gaduridos Communist Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Anantanese Ocean Pact |
| Message | This treaty would make us give up much of our sovereignty and we can't vote in favor of such thing. Examples: "Each Signatory state will decrease trade and commerce barriers, tariffs and other import taxes"; "Signatory States should endeavor to reduce competition"; "The Anantanese Ocean shall be declared "Open Waters" under the Law of the Sea to all signatory states". |
| Date | 22:59:30, October 28, 2016 CET | From | Classical Liberal Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Anantanese Ocean Pact |
| Message | We don't see free trade as a loss of sovereignty, it promotes a healthy dialogue to determine what exactly this nation wants as sovereignty. |
| Date | 03:19:34, October 29, 2016 CET | From | United Federalist League | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Anantanese Ocean Pact |
| Message | While not against all of it, we can not be hard pressed to support. As a party that is openly for Gaduridos, we can not support an effort to make things fairer for one nation, while not allowing our own to prosper. Especially the soldier clause, and as the Communist party has mention, "Open waters." I'm not claiming we will be defenseless, but we are giving a lot of our military and social power away, to this notion of "Peace for all eligible states." The UNFL is still very confused in this matter, while we shall always disagree with treaties that open our borders to riff raff, we can't be angry at the cause. Peace with our neighbors sounds good, I especially agree with 4. Signatory States may, at their option, open a neutral international sea/air port for the purpose of refuel and resupply, which will be made available to all Signatory States. The base should be accessible from the Anatanese Ocean. If a signatory state opts not to open such a base, there is no requirement that they maintain such facilities. For one, I very much like this clause. Allowing our troops, ships and airforce to be allowed to refuel and pit stop would give us more international range. Overall, the UNFL Can support this treaty for Military and Security purposes. But economy wise and culturally, we don't care much for it. We are in potential support. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 79 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 60 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 62 |
| Random fact: Particracy isn't just a game, it also has a forum, where players meet up to discuss role-playing, talk about in-game stuff, run their own newspaper or organisation and even discuss non-game and real-life issues! Check it out: http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Political correctness is just tyranny with manners." - Charlton Heston |