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: Treaty Removal Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Whig 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: August 4265
Description[?]:
| The elections in 4264 that have propelled my party to prominence we believe are a mandate from the Rutanian people to enact real and meaningful conservative change. We therefore ask the Peoples Assembly to respect the peoples choice, respect and honor their mandate by revoking the following treaties. We are prepared for our critics to oppose this measure but I would like to remind our critics that the Grand Conservative Union took 33% of the electorate in the last election, that is 1/3 of the electorate and their voice should be heard, also this bill will change none of the laws on the books, that is a battle for another day but this is the battle of today. |
Proposals
Article 1
Withdraw from the International Racial Equality Agreement.
Article 2
Withdraw from the Diplomatic Embargo And Denouncement of the Republic of Saridan and Act against Segregation.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:22:58, August 31, 2017 CET | From | Whig Party | To | Debating the Treaty Removal Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We especially ask our coalition partners who have formed this government with us to respect the peoples wishes and revoke these treaties so true debate can begin in the Commonwealth on how to proceed now after the sovereign power to determine our own laws is returned to us. -Prime Minister Royce Blood |
| Date | 04:46:07, August 31, 2017 CET | From |  Liberal Party | To | Debating the Treaty Removal Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, We respectfully disagree with our coalition partners in the Grand Conservative Union in removing ourselves from these treaties. We would support withdrawing from Article 1 due to the unique inefficiency of the treaty, but removing ourselves from Article 2 is grounds for controversy. Out of many of the hardcore conservatives that we met on the campaign trail, which more than likely voted for the Grand Conservative Union, many supported at least the general understanding that public amenities should not be segregated. I would gladly direct our partners to look more into immigration, as this is one of the most controversial issues of our Commonwealth that we can finally address with some conservative stances. |
| Date | 21:42:29, August 31, 2017 CET | From | Whig Party | To | Debating the Treaty Removal Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, If I may inquire further with our partners in the Radical Centrist Grouping, are you stating that you would support Article I and not Article II? If so we will happily introduce legislation with only article I however I would like to add that The Embargo against Saridan is a tragically outdated treaty that has been kept around in the past by the extreme liberals who feared removing the restrictions the treaty imposes. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 251 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 384 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 115 |
| Random fact: Periodically, it is a good idea to go through your nation's Treaties and arrange to withdraw from any that are unwanted. |
| Random quote: "Civil disobedience. . . is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem." - Howard Zinn |